Posted by Kazper at 7:21pm Dec 14 '08If the [[conveyee]] is aware of what the conveyer is doing then the conveyer doesn't have to narrow down the event. Example: If x1 is running and the [[conveyee]] knows this then x1 doesn't need to say: rvs k g mok ieta b d ty g [something] c x1 can say: mok ieta ty g [something] c
To define a verb you state an event, so to narrow down a verb that was in a particular event you have to state that particular event, which is why one says the event in: mok d eg tim t kofo qgt rvs g mqg kofo c Saying mok d eg tim t rvs g mqg kofo c I think is just a brevity scheme and what one is actually conveying is the former.
rvs k g mok kofo f vrb pq kon qgt [fece] b pr vrb qgt [fece gqo] c
If I were to include "pq" and "qgt [fece]"... it wouldn't make sense because how can "eat" be in the present and at the same time in the future? Or be in one location while at the same time be in another location?...
If it's tim t vrb then t should be vrb d tim. Time being a... prepositional: x1 d position in space or time equal
mok d eg position in m time s kon b x1
I may not indicate irregular syllables because syllable formation may be left to the conveyer because what's easier for me may not be easier for another and it don't matter because syllable formation don't change meaning.
When one says do not run they aren't saying do the opposite of run they're essentially saying to do something other than run.
I do not make and will not make distinctions between restrictive and unrestrictive/incidental relative clauses (unless I change my mind!).
I'll indicate nominative case (agentive which corresponds to agent) when it moves from its usual place in front of the verb where it functions as the subject.
I don't think my "tyt" is a relative pronoun since I'm conceiving that that is relativized as being ellipsed in the relative clause but sometimes it wont and that pronoun word I think would be more rightly called a relative pronoun... or resumptive pronoun...
Semantic arguements are those arguements that are needed to define the verb. Syntactic arguements are those arguements that are needed in an expression. The syntactic arguement needed may be the subject (any arguement to serve as the focus)... Since agent doesn't automatically correspond to subject I may make the syntactic arguements (if any) out of numbers and that one which precedes the verb will be functioning as the subject. Though perhaps there should be a direct correspondence, unless one doesn't care which two arguements of a 3valency verb must be expressed in a sentence... If [[syntactic arguement one]] doesn't correspond to any particular semantic arguement and one wants at least the agent arguement for a proper sentence... then this one should have syntactic arguements that directly correspond to semantic arguements.
Tense and aspect are always used by me, even if ellipsed, so those would be syntactic arguements.
The semantic arguement structure of a verb could be given in the definition as well as the syntactic arguement structure...
Languages that do not inflect for case may be using subject, object, etc. as their terms for those arguements...
A colloquiallism may be like French "J'ai faim." that is peculiar to French from the perspective of an English speaker, let's say, but definitely not a metaphor or... some sort of... incomplete phrase or sentence which requires a greater understanding of the language in order to interpret, which may be what an idiom is, if in fact it's not a synonym of colloquial...
If you wanna talk about one of the arguements of a verb... then you have to highlight it and narrow it down... by conveying the event that it's a part of. The same is true if you wanna talk about a verb. A particular verb in a particular event must be narrowed down by converying the particular event that it belongs to.
If you're not predicating a verb then you're conveying an event that the verb is the nucleus of...
fece tyd xqm po kofo qgt b tx maczm c
xqm po kofo qgt maczm c
qgt maczm xqm po kofo c
maczm
All the above could be answers to the request: va d bi g mqg kobx fece tyd xqm po kofo qgt c
Yes. One only needs to narrow down the verb by using the event that it's a part of if it needs to be narrowed.
If there's two people eating and you wanna say something about the eating of one of them then you should have to narrow it down...
To lessen the load on memory the word representing syntactic arguements should be derived from the word representing semantic arguements. Perhaps agentive for agent and so on... (I've seen such words). This of course if there is a 1:1 correspondence.
If the event: "x1 fight x2" has to be narrowed down before the location can be given then I could say this: "fight that x1 r*rvpo x2 b in [location] c"
If the event: "x1 fight x2" hasnot to be narrowed down before the location can be given then I could say this: "x1 fight x2 in [location] c"
Perhaps though the majority of the time the arguements of the verb would be what get narrowed...
"action that x1 r*rvpo b d avom c" Regardless of who x1 is the action itself may d avom... If you were to convey this as an event then the other arguements are also part of the cause of avom...
"hat that x1 wears is mine" does not mean x1 is mine just as "action that x1 do angers me" does not mean "x1 angers me". I may be angered by any one/thing that does the action...
The final analysis of arguements with their verbs in events necessitates the relativization of a verb with the event in which it is the nucleus when one wants to talk about the verb only and not about the arguements. The event in which the verb is a nucleus is used as the relative clause because the conveyer needs it to narrow down the verb they desire to talk about. Another person desiring to talk about the same verb may use as a relative clause another event in which the verb is a nucleus of.
If I wanna say Shawn eating makes me happy I would say "Shawn eat cause avom c
If I wanna say eating that just happens to be done by Shawn and is the event that I use to narrow down eat makes me happy (shawn doesn't necessarily make me happy nor does he and his current action but just the action) I would say "eat that Shawn r*rvpo b d avom c".
So, if you're trying to narrow down the event and not the verb in it then you should just try to narrow down the arguements in the event. ... Basically, my aspects may stay the same...
The benefit of root words and of new words derived from them is the ease which it creates for one's memory.
All arguements, especially since their semantic/thematic roles may not be known, will have a [[syntactic]] role (these ones don't correlate to semantic roles... because they aren't known).
There's subject which is the verb or arguement that's the focus of the sentence.
There's predicate which is the verb and any other arguements or just other arguements of the sentence.
Given that the arguements can be moved around, to be able to convey the arrangement of the components on a deeper level then subject and predicate the arguements could be numbered. The first on the left is one. Example: eat Shawn hamburger. The "first level" is S and P where "eat" is the S and "Shawn hamburger" is the P. The "second level" is V A1 A2 where "eat" is the verb, "Shawn" is A1 and "hamburger" is A2. The "third level" is V, agentive and patientive where "eat" is the verb, "Shawn" is agentive and "hamburger" is patientive. (I'll probably just use agent and patient...).
You wanna be able to convey: A1 A2 V A3. There is S then P (which is the standard word order) but if you don't know what the semantic roles of the arguements are then you can't convey the arrangement of the components beyond the S & P level... (I think this is the reason they have non-correlative syntactic cases. If now nominative, for example, can be correlative (correlating to agent) or non-correlative (a positional slot) at times, maybe even in one particular language, I think there should be different names for the non-correlatives. Perhaps arguement one, etc.)
Even if one has managed to define every conceivable semantic/thematic role and has created affixes or devised some other scheme to indicate this information in expressions I think it very unlikely that the majority of the language's users will be able to always discern the entirety of their own meaning and remember the correct affixes or whatever in order to convey that meaning. So, nor do I think receivers would have sufficient memory to decipher an expression from one who was so capable. Lojban allows one to be ambiguous if they want or need to while letting it be clearly indicated that there is ambiguity. I think that's a good idea. It's practical. It allows many to use the language. Yet, more specificity is capable... for those more capable.
You either use a phrase that is long or you compress it into a new word and increase your lexicon (or you can do some other stuff I don't know how to do and can't really explain).
Over lexification is relative. What might be a very uncommon phrase or sentence to one may be most common to another, compelling them to create a new word for brevity's sake.
If I allow the word: "ymelesq" where "sq" is not a bound (unstandalone) morpheme... so that the ellipsed components of the ellipsed conceptual relationship in which it belongs is understood to still be ellipsed and not part of the internal structure of "sq" then this word is formed exactly the same as this word: "table picnic y". The only problem with this is that "y" narrows "picnic", not "table" and given my suffixing rule a "le" after "picnic" and before "y" would be interpreted as a "le" after "table" for "y". "y" would be interpreted as a first level N.
A possible benefit of correlative syntactic arguement names is that if they are marked and if arguements that are not needed in expressions are marked with their semantic arguement names then one can learn or at least be reminded of what arguements are needed and not needed for expressions of particular verbs. If, for example, x2 of "x1 eat x2" is not needed for a sentence involving "eat" then it could be marked patient and not patientive while x1 would be marked agentive.
Perhaps also, those arguements that are not semantic arguements (core/valence arguements) or syntactic arguements (arguements needed for expressions that correlate to a particular semantic/thematic role that's shared by a particular semantic arguement) could be marked differently. They too would correlate to a particular semantic/thematic role but their different name would indicate that they are not needed to define verbs nor are they needed in expressions of particular verbs... If I were to do something like this I would make it optional or have... ambiguity indicators to inform that a particular role and the other information is not known since I don't know all the various semantic/thematic roles.
A benefit of having names for your letters other than the sounds they represent is that one can spell out a morpheme, for example, without relying solely on the represented sound of each letter. If each name of the letters are unique and start with the letter that they represent (not actually necessary) then one who cannot tell two sounds apart, "f" and "v" for example, will be able to determine the letter that one is trying to convey if they can remember the name that represents it.
We're defeating the purpose if each letter's name starts with the letter it represents and shares the rest of their form with each other letteral name (kok, gok, fok,...) because if one cannot tell two sounds apart the lack of uniqueness in the rest of the form leaves you with the same problem. I think it's a good idea though if these letteral names still start with the letter they represent so that there's a... mneumonic relation between them but the rest of the forms have to be distinct from eachother. An example:
kkok (k), ggqg (g),ffrf (f), mmem (m),... vvyv (v),... (These still may not be unique enough) Using often the letter that the letteral name represents in the letteral name should help one to learn/remember what letter each letteral name represents.
~Shawn Savoie~
~Ottawa, Ontario, Canada~
To define a verb you state an event, so to narrow down a verb that was in a particular event you have to state that particular event, which is why one says the event in: mok d eg tim t kofo qgt rvs g mqg kofo c Saying mok d eg tim t rvs g mqg kofo c I think is just a brevity scheme and what one is actually conveying is the former.
rvs k g mok kofo f vrb pq kon qgt [fece] b pr vrb qgt [fece gqo] c
If I were to include "pq" and "qgt [fece]"... it wouldn't make sense because how can "eat" be in the present and at the same time in the future? Or be in one location while at the same time be in another location?...
If it's tim t vrb then t should be vrb d tim. Time being a... prepositional: x1 d position in space or time equal
mok d eg position in m time s kon b x1
I may not indicate irregular syllables because syllable formation may be left to the conveyer because what's easier for me may not be easier for another and it don't matter because syllable formation don't change meaning.
When one says do not run they aren't saying do the opposite of run they're essentially saying to do something other than run.
I do not make and will not make distinctions between restrictive and unrestrictive/incidental relative clauses (unless I change my mind!).
I'll indicate nominative case (agentive which corresponds to agent) when it moves from its usual place in front of the verb where it functions as the subject.
I don't think my "tyt" is a relative pronoun since I'm conceiving that that is relativized as being ellipsed in the relative clause but sometimes it wont and that pronoun word I think would be more rightly called a relative pronoun... or resumptive pronoun...
Semantic arguements are those arguements that are needed to define the verb. Syntactic arguements are those arguements that are needed in an expression. The syntactic arguement needed may be the subject (any arguement to serve as the focus)... Since agent doesn't automatically correspond to subject I may make the syntactic arguements (if any) out of numbers and that one which precedes the verb will be functioning as the subject. Though perhaps there should be a direct correspondence, unless one doesn't care which two arguements of a 3valency verb must be expressed in a sentence... If [[syntactic arguement one]] doesn't correspond to any particular semantic arguement and one wants at least the agent arguement for a proper sentence... then this one should have syntactic arguements that directly correspond to semantic arguements.
Tense and aspect are always used by me, even if ellipsed, so those would be syntactic arguements.
The semantic arguement structure of a verb could be given in the definition as well as the syntactic arguement structure...
Languages that do not inflect for case may be using subject, object, etc. as their terms for those arguements...
A colloquiallism may be like French "J'ai faim." that is peculiar to French from the perspective of an English speaker, let's say, but definitely not a metaphor or... some sort of... incomplete phrase or sentence which requires a greater understanding of the language in order to interpret, which may be what an idiom is, if in fact it's not a synonym of colloquial...
If you wanna talk about one of the arguements of a verb... then you have to highlight it and narrow it down... by conveying the event that it's a part of. The same is true if you wanna talk about a verb. A particular verb in a particular event must be narrowed down by converying the particular event that it belongs to.
If you're not predicating a verb then you're conveying an event that the verb is the nucleus of...
fece tyd xqm po kofo qgt b tx maczm c
xqm po kofo qgt maczm c
qgt maczm xqm po kofo c
maczm
All the above could be answers to the request: va d bi g mqg kobx fece tyd xqm po kofo qgt c
Yes. One only needs to narrow down the verb by using the event that it's a part of if it needs to be narrowed.
If there's two people eating and you wanna say something about the eating of one of them then you should have to narrow it down...
To lessen the load on memory the word representing syntactic arguements should be derived from the word representing semantic arguements. Perhaps agentive for agent and so on... (I've seen such words). This of course if there is a 1:1 correspondence.
If the event: "x1 fight x2" has to be narrowed down before the location can be given then I could say this: "fight that x1 r*rvpo x2 b in [location] c"
If the event: "x1 fight x2" hasnot to be narrowed down before the location can be given then I could say this: "x1 fight x2 in [location] c"
Perhaps though the majority of the time the arguements of the verb would be what get narrowed...
"action that x1 r*rvpo b d avom c" Regardless of who x1 is the action itself may d avom... If you were to convey this as an event then the other arguements are also part of the cause of avom...
"hat that x1 wears is mine" does not mean x1 is mine just as "action that x1 do angers me" does not mean "x1 angers me". I may be angered by any one/thing that does the action...
The final analysis of arguements with their verbs in events necessitates the relativization of a verb with the event in which it is the nucleus when one wants to talk about the verb only and not about the arguements. The event in which the verb is a nucleus is used as the relative clause because the conveyer needs it to narrow down the verb they desire to talk about. Another person desiring to talk about the same verb may use as a relative clause another event in which the verb is a nucleus of.
If I wanna say Shawn eating makes me happy I would say "Shawn eat cause avom c
If I wanna say eating that just happens to be done by Shawn and is the event that I use to narrow down eat makes me happy (shawn doesn't necessarily make me happy nor does he and his current action but just the action) I would say "eat that Shawn r*rvpo b d avom c".
So, if you're trying to narrow down the event and not the verb in it then you should just try to narrow down the arguements in the event. ... Basically, my aspects may stay the same...
The benefit of root words and of new words derived from them is the ease which it creates for one's memory.
All arguements, especially since their semantic/thematic roles may not be known, will have a [[syntactic]] role (these ones don't correlate to semantic roles... because they aren't known).
There's subject which is the verb or arguement that's the focus of the sentence.
There's predicate which is the verb and any other arguements or just other arguements of the sentence.
Given that the arguements can be moved around, to be able to convey the arrangement of the components on a deeper level then subject and predicate the arguements could be numbered. The first on the left is one. Example: eat Shawn hamburger. The "first level" is S and P where "eat" is the S and "Shawn hamburger" is the P. The "second level" is V A1 A2 where "eat" is the verb, "Shawn" is A1 and "hamburger" is A2. The "third level" is V, agentive and patientive where "eat" is the verb, "Shawn" is agentive and "hamburger" is patientive. (I'll probably just use agent and patient...).
You wanna be able to convey: A1 A2 V A3. There is S then P (which is the standard word order) but if you don't know what the semantic roles of the arguements are then you can't convey the arrangement of the components beyond the S & P level... (I think this is the reason they have non-correlative syntactic cases. If now nominative, for example, can be correlative (correlating to agent) or non-correlative (a positional slot) at times, maybe even in one particular language, I think there should be different names for the non-correlatives. Perhaps arguement one, etc.)
Even if one has managed to define every conceivable semantic/thematic role and has created affixes or devised some other scheme to indicate this information in expressions I think it very unlikely that the majority of the language's users will be able to always discern the entirety of their own meaning and remember the correct affixes or whatever in order to convey that meaning. So, nor do I think receivers would have sufficient memory to decipher an expression from one who was so capable. Lojban allows one to be ambiguous if they want or need to while letting it be clearly indicated that there is ambiguity. I think that's a good idea. It's practical. It allows many to use the language. Yet, more specificity is capable... for those more capable.
You either use a phrase that is long or you compress it into a new word and increase your lexicon (or you can do some other stuff I don't know how to do and can't really explain).
Over lexification is relative. What might be a very uncommon phrase or sentence to one may be most common to another, compelling them to create a new word for brevity's sake.
If I allow the word: "ymelesq" where "sq" is not a bound (unstandalone) morpheme... so that the ellipsed components of the ellipsed conceptual relationship in which it belongs is understood to still be ellipsed and not part of the internal structure of "sq" then this word is formed exactly the same as this word: "table picnic y". The only problem with this is that "y" narrows "picnic", not "table" and given my suffixing rule a "le" after "picnic" and before "y" would be interpreted as a "le" after "table" for "y". "y" would be interpreted as a first level N.
A possible benefit of correlative syntactic arguement names is that if they are marked and if arguements that are not needed in expressions are marked with their semantic arguement names then one can learn or at least be reminded of what arguements are needed and not needed for expressions of particular verbs. If, for example, x2 of "x1 eat x2" is not needed for a sentence involving "eat" then it could be marked patient and not patientive while x1 would be marked agentive.
Perhaps also, those arguements that are not semantic arguements (core/valence arguements) or syntactic arguements (arguements needed for expressions that correlate to a particular semantic/thematic role that's shared by a particular semantic arguement) could be marked differently. They too would correlate to a particular semantic/thematic role but their different name would indicate that they are not needed to define verbs nor are they needed in expressions of particular verbs... If I were to do something like this I would make it optional or have... ambiguity indicators to inform that a particular role and the other information is not known since I don't know all the various semantic/thematic roles.
A benefit of having names for your letters other than the sounds they represent is that one can spell out a morpheme, for example, without relying solely on the represented sound of each letter. If each name of the letters are unique and start with the letter that they represent (not actually necessary) then one who cannot tell two sounds apart, "f" and "v" for example, will be able to determine the letter that one is trying to convey if they can remember the name that represents it.
We're defeating the purpose if each letter's name starts with the letter it represents and shares the rest of their form with each other letteral name (kok, gok, fok,...) because if one cannot tell two sounds apart the lack of uniqueness in the rest of the form leaves you with the same problem. I think it's a good idea though if these letteral names still start with the letter they represent so that there's a... mneumonic relation between them but the rest of the forms have to be distinct from eachother. An example:
kkok (k), ggqg (g),ffrf (f), mmem (m),... vvyv (v),... (These still may not be unique enough) Using often the letter that the letteral name represents in the letteral name should help one to learn/remember what letter each letteral name represents.
~Shawn Savoie~
~Ottawa, Ontario, Canada~
Re: Ruminations. - Kazper