Posted by Kazper at 2:20pm Jan 3 '09In "x1 teach x2 and x2 vo x3" the knowledge of x2 may be what is metaphorically going vo x3...
In some way secondary events narrow the primary event and all together become one event. Secondary events can attach to either one of the two core arguements.
[[subject]] may be that that does the verb/preposition (an A, AP or P).
[[direct object]] may be that that has the verb/preposition done to it (a P or F).
[[predicate]] may still be the verb/preposition, [[direct object]] and coverbs and any of their arguements.
[[selbri]] may be the general term for verb and preposition.
[[object]] may be the [[direct object]] and the coverbs and their arguements.
The highlighted position is the first position and can be filled by a [[subject]], or a [[direct object]], or a coverb and any of its arguements, or a [[selbri]].
~There's only two core arguements: [[subject]] and [[direct object]] though a [[selbri]] may have more than two semantic arguements (arguements with whatever thematic role that are needed to define the [[selbri]]).
Arguements of [[selbri]] functioning as [[coselbri]] (coverb) represent new thematic roles dependent on the context that they're in.
The only time I benefit from having units for the powers of ten is when a number contains many zeros. One thousand is shorter than one zero zero zero but one one two two is definitely shorter than one thousand one hundred two ten and two.
My relativizer/relative conjunction could by default be finite and I could have an affix that changes it to non-finite and maybe even ones for restrictive and unrestrictive.
There's [[core]] arguements and [[uncore]] arguements. Both can function as semantic and syntactic arguements but only uncore arguements can function as oblique arguements.
[[Uncore]] arguements that do not function as semantic arguements may still function as syntactic arguements.
Actually, any arguement not needed in an expression, whether or not it is [[core]] or [[uncore]] and whether or not it functioned as a semantic arguement, should be considered an oblique if it is expressed even though it doesn't have to be (this may be why a core xor primary arguement in Latejami can become an oblique as a result of passivization).
[[Core]] and [[uncore]] is determined relative to the main/primary verb in the event in which they are a part.
[[Core]] arguements can't be unsemantic (I jus' don't think it makes sense) but they can still be unsyntactic and so obliques.
Common incomplete phrases with common general variables are prime candidates for affixes.
Common complete phrases are prime candidates for morphemes.
"Runner" is not a noun form of "run". "Run" is just part of a noun phrase. A verbal noun is just a noun in a verb phrase. A verb can't be anything but a verb. A noun can't be anything but a noun.
I may make all affixes prefixes. Meaning the internal structure of the prefix consists of a phrase head and an incomplete phrase tail. Because the word that's created may not function as a narrower of another term.
Derivational affixes are bound morphemes.
Inflectional affixes are bound [[or unbound]] morphemes.
The meaning of a derivational word is quite different from the meaning of the root or stem of the derivational word.
The meaning of an inflectional word is not quite as different from the meaning of the root or stem of the inflectional word.
Both derivational words and inflectional words represent meanings different from the meanings of the roots or stems that are the main defining components of them.
In my language all derivational affixes may be prefixes and all inflectional affixes may be suffixes.
Derivational prefixes (DP) are added first, with the outermost one modifying the root or stem plus 1st DP then plus the 2nd DP and so on... if necessary.
Inflectional suffixes (IS) are added after, to the derivational word. Bound IS first I think and only first level narrowers (bound IS morphemes, morphemes, words and compounds can attach but not... [[periphrastics]]).
... Perhaps though, I'll make all inflectional suffixes bound and not use free morphemes, words or compounds as suffixes.
Free morphemes, words and compounds that commonly function as narrowers could have an inflectional form (gender for example).
The meaning of derivational words is quite different from the meaning of the root or stem of it because the root or stem is just one component of a phrase tail that is narrowing down a phrase head which is contained within the prefix as the first word.
The meaning of inflectional words is not quite as different from the meaning of the root or stem of it because the root or stem is the phrase head that is being narrowed down by a phrase tail which is contained within the suffix.
Since, for me, phrases consist of a phrase head and a phrase tail which is one or more relative clauses which follow the phrase head this explains why derivational affixes will always be prefixes and inflectional affixes will always be suffixes.
Derivational words and inflectional words, within phrases, can both function as phrase heads or as narrowers within phrase tails.
Since "inflection" is the general term for "conjugation" and "declension" I may use "underivational" in place of "inflectional". So I have bound derivational and underivational declensions which should be and remain agglutinative.
~Shawn Savoie~
~Ottawa, Ontario, Canada~
DP = [[zo]] = one k that one x1
US = t*ok = x1 k that in presence of I (this)
In the derivational word the "root or stem" (x1) (I think I'm gonna need a different word) is a narrower in a relative clause in a phrase tail that's narrowing down "one", so the meaning of the derivational word... revolves around "one" and not "x1", which is why the meaning of the derivational word is quite different from the meaning of the "root or stem" of it.
In the underivational word the "root or stem" (x1) is a relativized/phrase head that is being narrowed by a relative clause in a phrase tail, so the meaning of the underivational word revolves around "x1", which is why the meaning of the underivational word is not quite as different from the meaning of the "root or stem" of it.
~Shawn Savoie~
~Ottawa, Ontario, Canada~
In some way secondary events narrow the primary event and all together become one event. Secondary events can attach to either one of the two core arguements.
[[subject]] may be that that does the verb/preposition (an A, AP or P).
[[direct object]] may be that that has the verb/preposition done to it (a P or F).
[[predicate]] may still be the verb/preposition, [[direct object]] and coverbs and any of their arguements.
[[selbri]] may be the general term for verb and preposition.
[[object]] may be the [[direct object]] and the coverbs and their arguements.
The highlighted position is the first position and can be filled by a [[subject]], or a [[direct object]], or a coverb and any of its arguements, or a [[selbri]].
~There's only two core arguements: [[subject]] and [[direct object]] though a [[selbri]] may have more than two semantic arguements (arguements with whatever thematic role that are needed to define the [[selbri]]).
Arguements of [[selbri]] functioning as [[coselbri]] (coverb) represent new thematic roles dependent on the context that they're in.
The only time I benefit from having units for the powers of ten is when a number contains many zeros. One thousand is shorter than one zero zero zero but one one two two is definitely shorter than one thousand one hundred two ten and two.
My relativizer/relative conjunction could by default be finite and I could have an affix that changes it to non-finite and maybe even ones for restrictive and unrestrictive.
There's [[core]] arguements and [[uncore]] arguements. Both can function as semantic and syntactic arguements but only uncore arguements can function as oblique arguements.
[[Uncore]] arguements that do not function as semantic arguements may still function as syntactic arguements.
Actually, any arguement not needed in an expression, whether or not it is [[core]] or [[uncore]] and whether or not it functioned as a semantic arguement, should be considered an oblique if it is expressed even though it doesn't have to be (this may be why a core xor primary arguement in Latejami can become an oblique as a result of passivization).
[[Core]] and [[uncore]] is determined relative to the main/primary verb in the event in which they are a part.
[[Core]] arguements can't be unsemantic (I jus' don't think it makes sense) but they can still be unsyntactic and so obliques.
Common incomplete phrases with common general variables are prime candidates for affixes.
Common complete phrases are prime candidates for morphemes.
"Runner" is not a noun form of "run". "Run" is just part of a noun phrase. A verbal noun is just a noun in a verb phrase. A verb can't be anything but a verb. A noun can't be anything but a noun.
I may make all affixes prefixes. Meaning the internal structure of the prefix consists of a phrase head and an incomplete phrase tail. Because the word that's created may not function as a narrower of another term.
Derivational affixes are bound morphemes.
Inflectional affixes are bound [[or unbound]] morphemes.
The meaning of a derivational word is quite different from the meaning of the root or stem of the derivational word.
The meaning of an inflectional word is not quite as different from the meaning of the root or stem of the inflectional word.
Both derivational words and inflectional words represent meanings different from the meanings of the roots or stems that are the main defining components of them.
In my language all derivational affixes may be prefixes and all inflectional affixes may be suffixes.
Derivational prefixes (DP) are added first, with the outermost one modifying the root or stem plus 1st DP then plus the 2nd DP and so on... if necessary.
Inflectional suffixes (IS) are added after, to the derivational word. Bound IS first I think and only first level narrowers (bound IS morphemes, morphemes, words and compounds can attach but not... [[periphrastics]]).
... Perhaps though, I'll make all inflectional suffixes bound and not use free morphemes, words or compounds as suffixes.
Free morphemes, words and compounds that commonly function as narrowers could have an inflectional form (gender for example).
The meaning of derivational words is quite different from the meaning of the root or stem of it because the root or stem is just one component of a phrase tail that is narrowing down a phrase head which is contained within the prefix as the first word.
The meaning of inflectional words is not quite as different from the meaning of the root or stem of it because the root or stem is the phrase head that is being narrowed down by a phrase tail which is contained within the suffix.
Since, for me, phrases consist of a phrase head and a phrase tail which is one or more relative clauses which follow the phrase head this explains why derivational affixes will always be prefixes and inflectional affixes will always be suffixes.
Derivational words and inflectional words, within phrases, can both function as phrase heads or as narrowers within phrase tails.
Since "inflection" is the general term for "conjugation" and "declension" I may use "underivational" in place of "inflectional". So I have bound derivational and underivational declensions which should be and remain agglutinative.
~Shawn Savoie~
~Ottawa, Ontario, Canada~
added on 4:01pm Jan 3 '09:
An example of a derivational prefix and of an underivational suffix (US):DP = [[zo]] = one k that one x1
US = t*ok = x1 k that in presence of I (this)
In the derivational word the "root or stem" (x1) (I think I'm gonna need a different word) is a narrower in a relative clause in a phrase tail that's narrowing down "one", so the meaning of the derivational word... revolves around "one" and not "x1", which is why the meaning of the derivational word is quite different from the meaning of the "root or stem" of it.
In the underivational word the "root or stem" (x1) is a relativized/phrase head that is being narrowed by a relative clause in a phrase tail, so the meaning of the underivational word revolves around "x1", which is why the meaning of the underivational word is not quite as different from the meaning of the "root or stem" of it.
~Shawn Savoie~
~Ottawa, Ontario, Canada~