Posted by Kazper at 7:20pm Dec 14 '08A mess that's kinda all over the place with probably a fair amount wrong which you also won't fully understand because some of it's in my language which fluctuates but I thought I'd throw it out there.
Notes:
A verb and its arguements creates an event and since a verb can't exist without its arguements, implicitly or explicitly conveyed, a verb will always create an event.
An event consists of a verb and its arguements: necessary/valence arguements and unnecessary/oblique arguements. Necessary arguements being those that were determined necessary to define a verb. Unnecessary arguements being those that were determined unnecessary to define the verb.
A subject is the arguement of the event that is the focus of the sentence and what the sentence is about.
A predicate is the verb and the other arguements of the event that is what's said about the subject.
Nouns, adjectives and adverbs within relative/narrowing clauses are narrowers. The verbs and conjunctions are kinda ignored (they're often ellipsed anyway though). They are narrowers too though because they are being conveyed in a relative/narrowing clause to help narrow...
"hair" in "girl hair is attractive." is a narrower and it too belongs to an ellipsed conceptual relation since "that" and "possess" are ellipsed but the reason why the ellipsed conceptual relation indicateer is not used is because the ellipsed words should easily be known for a user of this language and because of brevity. If I had to use it in cases like this- I'd have to use it all the time!
The difference between derivational and inflectional affixes (at least in my language) may be the... degree of boundedness. If a particular word must precede or follow an affix then we're dealing with a bound affix. So there maynot be a derivational-inflectional difference, as all affixes create compound type words which are phrases (relative clauses really) with a meaning. The only real difference between affixes being the degree of boundedness.
An example of a bound affix (qt*): qt*lokeat svo {b} tx yme t mok c
An example of an unbound affix (sq): ymelesq svo {b} d avom c
In the former example if "qt*" were to be an unattached affix "qt*" would still have to immediately precede "keat" and not "svo" even though both are narrowers. The reason being that the internal structure of "qt*" equals "nxn tyt nxn [vrb]". If "svo" immediately followed it would fill the vrb place and since it's not a vrb... it don't make sense.
In the latter example if "sq" were to be an unattached affix "sq" would not have to still immediately follow "yme" but could follow "svo". The reason being that the internal structure of "sq" equals "kzmtqt k tdwc koo". Both "sq" and "svo" are first level narrowers. All that has to be done is to ensure that "sq" isn't mistaken for a narrower of "svo". Context can do that or "kon" in this particular example.
A verb cannot be the arguement of another verb since, by definition, a verb is automatically a part of an event. So to say that a verb causes something, for example, is to say that the event in which it is a part causes something.
If an arguement of verb1 is in another tense than verb1 then the arguement is an arguement of another verb (verb2) which shares the same tense and verb1 and its arguements which share the same tense function as an arguement of verb2.
Even if the tense of a latter verb is the same... it is part of a different event with an arguement structure of its own.
nxyd sq not having arguement structures and prepositions having somewhat of an arguement structure that takes at least one verb... means that they can function as arguements and add themselves to a verb to augment its primary, defined event.
Adjective is a semantic category. A general one. Adverb too is a general semantic category.
"Red is my favourite colour." / "red tx colour avom moct c" "red" in these sentences is still semantically grouped in the adjective category but syntactically it is functioning as an agent (unvoluntary) and also as the highlighted arguement (subject).
A morpheme is a combination of phonemes, optionally represented by graphemes or [other things], that's function is to refer to a concept. Thus, a word being composed of two or more attached morphemes and a phrase being composed of two or more unattached morphemes xor two or more words xor one or more unattached morphemes and one or more words are fullfilling the same function as a single morpheme and could all be referred to generally as a name.
The CN Tower is the name... of The CN Tower, and is a phrase... (In actuality it is a relative clause.)
Because x1 shares part of the meaning of x2 does not mean that x1 is x2. At the most it means that x1 and x2 are similar and could be categorized together under a more general heading. After all how can x1 equal x2 without x2 equalling x1...
A morpheme is a combination of phonemes, optionally represented by graphemes or [other things], which refers to a phrase (relative clause) (simple or complex) which refers to a concept. Even if that phrase (relative clause) is not expressed in words, which must be the case when one or a few are just developing language capabilities and have zero words and must indicate the concept, that their morpheme is referring to, in some other way.
A word is an event that a conveyer convey with the intent to narrow down a morpheme, which is one of the arguements of the event, to aid in the function of referring to a concept. The unellipsed arguements and verb and [other things] are attached to the morpheme that is being narrowed.
A phrase (relative clause) is an event that a conveyer convey with the intent to narrow down a morpheme, which is one of the arguements of the event, to aid in the function of referring to a concept. The unellipsed arguements and verb and [other things] are not attached to the morpheme xor word that is being narrowed.
A simple word is composed of one conveyed event.
A simple phrase (relative clause) is composed of one conveyed event.
A complex word is composed of more than one conveyed event.
A complex phrase (relative clause) is composed of more than one conveyed event.
A difference between [?] compound words and affix compound words is that [?] compound words may always be attached but with an ellipsed conceptual relationship between... the root/stem... and the narrowers. Whereas affix compound words may always express the conceptual relationship but within the affix words...
A sentence is an event that a conveyer convey with some intent other than to narrow down a morpheme xor word.
To define "sq" like this: "x1 kzmtqt tx kzmtqt tdwc koo" is to create a bound morpheme. To free it the defintion should be: "kzmtqt k tx kzmtqt tdwc koo b".
Bound morphemes don't necessarily have to attach though... at least all of the time. The unattached ones though still require particular... fillers... They can't stand alone. So we have "standalone" and "unstandalone" morphemes.
1. Morpheme
1.1. Standalone (Refers to completed phrase (relative clause).)
1.2. Unstandalone (Refers to uncompleted phrase (relative clause) which requires completers.)
1.2.1. Attached (Completers attached.)
1.2.1.1. Prefix (Prefix on left of completer.)
1.2.1.2. Infix (Infix in middle of completer.)
1.2.1.3. Suffix (Suffix on right of completer.)
1.2.2. Unattached (Completers unattached.)
1.2.2.1. Precede (Precede off left of completer.)
1.2.2.2. Middle (Middle in middle of completer.)
1.2.2.3. Follow (Follow off right of completer.)
Affix plus standalone equals word.
Standalone plus standalone or word plus word or standalone plus word equals compound.
Periphrastics are seperate standalones or words or both that function as one and so can function as an arguement within a phrase (relative clause).
What came first: the morpheme or the phrase (relative clause)? I say the phrase (relative clause). Though the first articulation was a morpheme in reference to an unarticulated phrase (relative clause).
Theres what type of morpheme a morpheme is and what type of concept a concept is which the morpheme refers to. Morphemic and conceptual categories.
Proper noun could be proper name and it's that that refers to a particular concept.
Common noun could be common name and it's that that refers to a general concept.
The former could be called naot*e and the latter could be called naoet*.
One can define verbs with the use of known necessary arguements which should isolate the unknown verb phoneticaly and hopefully in the situation. If there's any chance the necessary arguements can be mistaken for the unknown verb or confuse in some way then additional demonstrations can be performed with other known necessary arguements. Also, if the action being demonstrated is too particular, like a woman just licking the penis instead of the other actions which constitute the... bigger action, then those other actions can be performed as well with the same verb ("blows") used. The teachers could keep repeating "[x1] blows [x2]." over time, to help isolate the actual verb.
A concept can have more than one description, though the total of descriptions equal the concept and the expression of just one or a few equals an aspect or aspects of the concept.
The morning star and the evening star are not identical expressions. Each has part of the meaning of the other but the rest is different. The phrases (relative clauses): "the man that runs" and "the man that jogs" both contain man, so does that mean they're identical...? No. If we're talking about the same man in both we are describing different things about the man.
When one uses t*e (the) in a phrase (relative clause) they are helping to narrow down if the listener knows who they have in mind. So t*e (the) can be a part of a description along with other narrowers.
The main description the refferent of a proper name has to fulfill is that they're the one that one has in mind.
Piglet is not a component of the phrase (relative clause): "pig that is a baby", it refers to the phrase (relative clause) and the phrase (relative clause) is a description of the concept ("baby pig").
"You are the Shawn that likes to be alone. I want the Shawn who likes to party". The referent is the same in both but the phrases (relative clauses) refer to descriptions of different aspects/essences of Shawn. One could create morphemes for these two phrases and they would be different.
nxyd sq and the like are defined with relative clauses that function as descriptions of concepts.
Verbs are defined with sentences that function as descriptions of concepts.
The default and so ellipsed [[aspect]] (in my language) may be j*yv.
The verb possesses: agent, patient, recipient,... And so, should be able to possess a manner.
In "action tyt xqm dwv b tx ieta c" what's really being said is: the event that equals action that xqm do equal run. The event in general is an action and in particular it's a run action.
Another reason for words and compound words could be fluidity. If a language relies on pauses to seperate words then joining, for example, two words into one eliminates a pause and so can make the speech more fluid or rhythmic they might say. Example: pzprsf - t - vw - t*ok - b - d - avom - c as pzprsf - t - vwlet*ok - b - d - avom - c
Hmmm... perhaps that's why some languages agglutinate entire phrases and sentences (treat them as words)...
It may indeed hinder brevity to use an affix seperateer where it is not needed to reduce morphemes (but on the contrary adds them) but brevity may not be the only reason for the use. Fluidity may be another. ...Actually, through this fluidity one may achieve brevity. Not through the elimination of phonemes and graphemes but through the elimination of some of the time needed to pronounce...
"pzp" in "pzposk" is not truly a seperate element. It has no meaning that's different from "osk". "pzposk" is a morpheme, not a word. "pzp" is not an affix. It does, in a way, have a meaning because it hints at a relationship between the morpheme that it is a part of and the morpheme "osk" but the primary reason for "pzp" in this case and other... [[common form joiners]] is to modify a morpheme enough that it's not the same but not so much that the new form can't help you guess at its meaning or at least help you to remember the meaning easier. "pzp" could be used somewhere else. It really has no meaning (unless I make a name out of this particular combination of phonemes but even then, using it as I'm using it here...). It is not functioning as an affix for me.
rvs k g I eat b vrb qgt [something] c The reason why "in" isn't in the event as an arguement is because... the event first had to be narrowed. It's all about the conveyer's intent. This should mean that "cause" could be an arguement of "eat" (for example).
mok d bi g mqg kobx tim d kofo qgt rvs g mqg kofo c
mok d bi g mqg kobx ty t kofo qgt {rvs} g mqg kofo c
~Shawn Savoie~
~Ottawa, Ontario, Canada~
Notes:
A verb and its arguements creates an event and since a verb can't exist without its arguements, implicitly or explicitly conveyed, a verb will always create an event.
An event consists of a verb and its arguements: necessary/valence arguements and unnecessary/oblique arguements. Necessary arguements being those that were determined necessary to define a verb. Unnecessary arguements being those that were determined unnecessary to define the verb.
A subject is the arguement of the event that is the focus of the sentence and what the sentence is about.
A predicate is the verb and the other arguements of the event that is what's said about the subject.
Nouns, adjectives and adverbs within relative/narrowing clauses are narrowers. The verbs and conjunctions are kinda ignored (they're often ellipsed anyway though). They are narrowers too though because they are being conveyed in a relative/narrowing clause to help narrow...
"hair" in "girl hair is attractive." is a narrower and it too belongs to an ellipsed conceptual relation since "that" and "possess" are ellipsed but the reason why the ellipsed conceptual relation indicateer is not used is because the ellipsed words should easily be known for a user of this language and because of brevity. If I had to use it in cases like this- I'd have to use it all the time!
The difference between derivational and inflectional affixes (at least in my language) may be the... degree of boundedness. If a particular word must precede or follow an affix then we're dealing with a bound affix. So there maynot be a derivational-inflectional difference, as all affixes create compound type words which are phrases (relative clauses really) with a meaning. The only real difference between affixes being the degree of boundedness.
An example of a bound affix (qt*): qt*lokeat svo {b} tx yme t mok c
An example of an unbound affix (sq): ymelesq svo {b} d avom c
In the former example if "qt*" were to be an unattached affix "qt*" would still have to immediately precede "keat" and not "svo" even though both are narrowers. The reason being that the internal structure of "qt*" equals "nxn tyt nxn [vrb]". If "svo" immediately followed it would fill the vrb place and since it's not a vrb... it don't make sense.
In the latter example if "sq" were to be an unattached affix "sq" would not have to still immediately follow "yme" but could follow "svo". The reason being that the internal structure of "sq" equals "kzmtqt k tdwc koo". Both "sq" and "svo" are first level narrowers. All that has to be done is to ensure that "sq" isn't mistaken for a narrower of "svo". Context can do that or "kon" in this particular example.
A verb cannot be the arguement of another verb since, by definition, a verb is automatically a part of an event. So to say that a verb causes something, for example, is to say that the event in which it is a part causes something.
If an arguement of verb1 is in another tense than verb1 then the arguement is an arguement of another verb (verb2) which shares the same tense and verb1 and its arguements which share the same tense function as an arguement of verb2.
Even if the tense of a latter verb is the same... it is part of a different event with an arguement structure of its own.
nxyd sq not having arguement structures and prepositions having somewhat of an arguement structure that takes at least one verb... means that they can function as arguements and add themselves to a verb to augment its primary, defined event.
Adjective is a semantic category. A general one. Adverb too is a general semantic category.
"Red is my favourite colour." / "red tx colour avom moct c" "red" in these sentences is still semantically grouped in the adjective category but syntactically it is functioning as an agent (unvoluntary) and also as the highlighted arguement (subject).
A morpheme is a combination of phonemes, optionally represented by graphemes or [other things], that's function is to refer to a concept. Thus, a word being composed of two or more attached morphemes and a phrase being composed of two or more unattached morphemes xor two or more words xor one or more unattached morphemes and one or more words are fullfilling the same function as a single morpheme and could all be referred to generally as a name.
The CN Tower is the name... of The CN Tower, and is a phrase... (In actuality it is a relative clause.)
Because x1 shares part of the meaning of x2 does not mean that x1 is x2. At the most it means that x1 and x2 are similar and could be categorized together under a more general heading. After all how can x1 equal x2 without x2 equalling x1...
A morpheme is a combination of phonemes, optionally represented by graphemes or [other things], which refers to a phrase (relative clause) (simple or complex) which refers to a concept. Even if that phrase (relative clause) is not expressed in words, which must be the case when one or a few are just developing language capabilities and have zero words and must indicate the concept, that their morpheme is referring to, in some other way.
A word is an event that a conveyer convey with the intent to narrow down a morpheme, which is one of the arguements of the event, to aid in the function of referring to a concept. The unellipsed arguements and verb and [other things] are attached to the morpheme that is being narrowed.
A phrase (relative clause) is an event that a conveyer convey with the intent to narrow down a morpheme, which is one of the arguements of the event, to aid in the function of referring to a concept. The unellipsed arguements and verb and [other things] are not attached to the morpheme xor word that is being narrowed.
A simple word is composed of one conveyed event.
A simple phrase (relative clause) is composed of one conveyed event.
A complex word is composed of more than one conveyed event.
A complex phrase (relative clause) is composed of more than one conveyed event.
A difference between [?] compound words and affix compound words is that [?] compound words may always be attached but with an ellipsed conceptual relationship between... the root/stem... and the narrowers. Whereas affix compound words may always express the conceptual relationship but within the affix words...
A sentence is an event that a conveyer convey with some intent other than to narrow down a morpheme xor word.
To define "sq" like this: "x1 kzmtqt tx kzmtqt tdwc koo" is to create a bound morpheme. To free it the defintion should be: "kzmtqt k tx kzmtqt tdwc koo b".
Bound morphemes don't necessarily have to attach though... at least all of the time. The unattached ones though still require particular... fillers... They can't stand alone. So we have "standalone" and "unstandalone" morphemes.
1. Morpheme
1.1. Standalone (Refers to completed phrase (relative clause).)
1.2. Unstandalone (Refers to uncompleted phrase (relative clause) which requires completers.)
1.2.1. Attached (Completers attached.)
1.2.1.1. Prefix (Prefix on left of completer.)
1.2.1.2. Infix (Infix in middle of completer.)
1.2.1.3. Suffix (Suffix on right of completer.)
1.2.2. Unattached (Completers unattached.)
1.2.2.1. Precede (Precede off left of completer.)
1.2.2.2. Middle (Middle in middle of completer.)
1.2.2.3. Follow (Follow off right of completer.)
Affix plus standalone equals word.
Standalone plus standalone or word plus word or standalone plus word equals compound.
Periphrastics are seperate standalones or words or both that function as one and so can function as an arguement within a phrase (relative clause).
What came first: the morpheme or the phrase (relative clause)? I say the phrase (relative clause). Though the first articulation was a morpheme in reference to an unarticulated phrase (relative clause).
Theres what type of morpheme a morpheme is and what type of concept a concept is which the morpheme refers to. Morphemic and conceptual categories.
Proper noun could be proper name and it's that that refers to a particular concept.
Common noun could be common name and it's that that refers to a general concept.
The former could be called naot*e and the latter could be called naoet*.
One can define verbs with the use of known necessary arguements which should isolate the unknown verb phoneticaly and hopefully in the situation. If there's any chance the necessary arguements can be mistaken for the unknown verb or confuse in some way then additional demonstrations can be performed with other known necessary arguements. Also, if the action being demonstrated is too particular, like a woman just licking the penis instead of the other actions which constitute the... bigger action, then those other actions can be performed as well with the same verb ("blows") used. The teachers could keep repeating "[x1] blows [x2]." over time, to help isolate the actual verb.
A concept can have more than one description, though the total of descriptions equal the concept and the expression of just one or a few equals an aspect or aspects of the concept.
The morning star and the evening star are not identical expressions. Each has part of the meaning of the other but the rest is different. The phrases (relative clauses): "the man that runs" and "the man that jogs" both contain man, so does that mean they're identical...? No. If we're talking about the same man in both we are describing different things about the man.
When one uses t*e (the) in a phrase (relative clause) they are helping to narrow down if the listener knows who they have in mind. So t*e (the) can be a part of a description along with other narrowers.
The main description the refferent of a proper name has to fulfill is that they're the one that one has in mind.
Piglet is not a component of the phrase (relative clause): "pig that is a baby", it refers to the phrase (relative clause) and the phrase (relative clause) is a description of the concept ("baby pig").
"You are the Shawn that likes to be alone. I want the Shawn who likes to party". The referent is the same in both but the phrases (relative clauses) refer to descriptions of different aspects/essences of Shawn. One could create morphemes for these two phrases and they would be different.
nxyd sq and the like are defined with relative clauses that function as descriptions of concepts.
Verbs are defined with sentences that function as descriptions of concepts.
The default and so ellipsed [[aspect]] (in my language) may be j*yv.
The verb possesses: agent, patient, recipient,... And so, should be able to possess a manner.
In "action tyt xqm dwv b tx ieta c" what's really being said is: the event that equals action that xqm do equal run. The event in general is an action and in particular it's a run action.
Another reason for words and compound words could be fluidity. If a language relies on pauses to seperate words then joining, for example, two words into one eliminates a pause and so can make the speech more fluid or rhythmic they might say. Example: pzprsf - t - vw - t*ok - b - d - avom - c as pzprsf - t - vwlet*ok - b - d - avom - c
Hmmm... perhaps that's why some languages agglutinate entire phrases and sentences (treat them as words)...
It may indeed hinder brevity to use an affix seperateer where it is not needed to reduce morphemes (but on the contrary adds them) but brevity may not be the only reason for the use. Fluidity may be another. ...Actually, through this fluidity one may achieve brevity. Not through the elimination of phonemes and graphemes but through the elimination of some of the time needed to pronounce...
"pzp" in "pzposk" is not truly a seperate element. It has no meaning that's different from "osk". "pzposk" is a morpheme, not a word. "pzp" is not an affix. It does, in a way, have a meaning because it hints at a relationship between the morpheme that it is a part of and the morpheme "osk" but the primary reason for "pzp" in this case and other... [[common form joiners]] is to modify a morpheme enough that it's not the same but not so much that the new form can't help you guess at its meaning or at least help you to remember the meaning easier. "pzp" could be used somewhere else. It really has no meaning (unless I make a name out of this particular combination of phonemes but even then, using it as I'm using it here...). It is not functioning as an affix for me.
rvs k g I eat b vrb qgt [something] c The reason why "in" isn't in the event as an arguement is because... the event first had to be narrowed. It's all about the conveyer's intent. This should mean that "cause" could be an arguement of "eat" (for example).
mok d bi g mqg kobx tim d kofo qgt rvs g mqg kofo c
mok d bi g mqg kobx ty t kofo qgt {rvs} g mqg kofo c
~Shawn Savoie~
~Ottawa, Ontario, Canada~
Ruminations. - Kazper