Posted by Kazper at 9:38pm Jan 5 '09Affixes are not morphemes, words or compounds they are affixes.
The particular thematic roles of the semantic arguements of a verb are determined by the verb, so are expressed by the verb. If one knows the verb they should know the thematic roles of its semantic arguements.
S, O and IO are used to indicate a limited range of thematic roles of an arguement when that arguement is moved form its standard place. Particular thematic roles could be indicated too if desired, maybe...
Verbs with more than two semantic arguements may absorb the third arguement and its coselbri may become part of the definition. Kinda like Lojban place structure [[bridi]].
If no particular arguement is needed for a sentence then the dictionary entry will just ask for an arguement.
V, S, O, IO, CS and S, V, O, IO, CS may both be standard term orders. This way I can avoid havng to indicate the S while using the first.
Any set of hierarchal terms that has the possibility of adding a new term and not just at the bottom should not be formed out of numbers since they could become arbitrary.
Perhaps the more correct way to look at [[coselbris/coverbs]] is not as modifiers of the primary event or verb but as that that augments the arguement structure of a primary verb creating a new event. They do this by taking as their [[subject]] one of the arguements ([[subject]] or [[direct object]] and maybe [[indirect object]]) of the primary verb.
Root or stem = [[rustem]] = that that fills the variable in an incomplete phrase that is represented by an affix.
In DWs the [[rustem]] is the 2nd prefix from the left, any intermediate prefixes and the morpheme or compound.
In declensional words the [[rustem]] is the 2nd suffix from the right, any intermediate suffixes and the DW.
In UWs the [[rustem]] is the 2nd suffix from the right, any intermediate suffixes and the morpheme or compound.
In a DW like this: zolozqlozrlox1 the rustem is zqlozrlox1 but the 1st rustem is x1 and the 2nd rustem is zrlox1.
In a declensional word like this: zolozqlozrlox1leopleqp the rustem is zolozqlozrlox1leop but the 1st rustem is x1, the 2nd is zrlox1, the 3rd is zqlozrlox1 and the fourth is zolozqlozrlox1.
In an UW like this: x1leopleqp the rustem is x1leop but the 1st rustem is x1.
A phrase is actually a phrase head and maybe a phrase tail (a phrase head for sure and maybe a phrase tail).
A phrase head is actually one term xor one term as a relativized head.
A complex phrase is more than one phrase head and maybe one xor more than one phrase tail.
A complex phrase head is more than one term xor more than one term as a relativized head xor more than one term and more than one term as a relativized head.
Complex phrases are part of complex sentences.
Subject suffix could be: x1 k d function equal function of subject in sentence this.
Object suffix could be: x1 k d function equal function of object in sentence this.
Indirect object suffix could be: x1 k d function equal function of indirect object in sentence this.
Selbri is jus' a generic term for verb and preposition, so within a sentence primary and secondary selbri... are still selbri. Selbri can't be used to identify the function of a selbri within a sentence.
Primary selbri retain their function... of describing an event while secondary selbri take on a new function of augmenting an event.
If I indicate the primary selbri/s then I don't have to indicate the secondary selbri/s. Since the secondary selbri/s could be many this is a productive brevity scheme.
Primary suffix could be: x1 k d function equal function of primary selbri in sentence this.
Phrase tail openers and closers will always be used. This way coselbri can never be mistaken for primary selbri or coselbri in relative clauses in phrase tails in phrases functioning as arguements.
If only one arguement is moved out of place to the highlighted position everything else just moves to the right and only that arguement's range of thematic roles needs to be indicated.
If only one arguement is moved out of place to some position other than the highlighted position then only the arguements after it move to the right. Ex: PS, S, CS1, O, IO, CS/s.
With PS, S, O, IO, CS as a standard word order and with the rules above S would have to be indicated when it's in the highlighted position.
Tense or... temporal arguements always precede the primary selbri.
I may need a "characteristic of" (they might call it an "attributive of") and a "property of" which can be subdivided into various types of possession. A generic one for all of them though may still be used.
Inflectional (declensional and conjugational) words may be like compound words in that they may sometimes represent only part of the meaning.
The thematic roles of core arguements are determined by their selbri.
The thematic roles or uncore arguements (core arguements of selbri that function as secondary selbri) are determined... by the primary selbri.
Core semantic, syntactic arguements and core semantic, unsyntactic arguements.
Uncore semantic, syntactic arguements and uncore semantic, unsyntactic arguements.
Uncore unsemantic, syntactic arguements and uncore unsemantic, unsyntactic arguements.
Uncore semantic syntactic xor unsyntactic arguements are indexed on the selbri.
The exact thematic roles, though determined by the selbri, may not be easily discernable, so: S, DO and IO are generic terms for a limited but unknown range of thematic roles.
Ss and DOs are core arguements.
IOs are uncore arguements.
Ss, DOs and IOs are semantic arguements.
~Shawn Savoie~
~Ottawa, Ontario, Canada~
The particular thematic roles of the semantic arguements of a verb are determined by the verb, so are expressed by the verb. If one knows the verb they should know the thematic roles of its semantic arguements.
S, O and IO are used to indicate a limited range of thematic roles of an arguement when that arguement is moved form its standard place. Particular thematic roles could be indicated too if desired, maybe...
Verbs with more than two semantic arguements may absorb the third arguement and its coselbri may become part of the definition. Kinda like Lojban place structure [[bridi]].
If no particular arguement is needed for a sentence then the dictionary entry will just ask for an arguement.
V, S, O, IO, CS and S, V, O, IO, CS may both be standard term orders. This way I can avoid havng to indicate the S while using the first.
Any set of hierarchal terms that has the possibility of adding a new term and not just at the bottom should not be formed out of numbers since they could become arbitrary.
Perhaps the more correct way to look at [[coselbris/coverbs]] is not as modifiers of the primary event or verb but as that that augments the arguement structure of a primary verb creating a new event. They do this by taking as their [[subject]] one of the arguements ([[subject]] or [[direct object]] and maybe [[indirect object]]) of the primary verb.
Root or stem = [[rustem]] = that that fills the variable in an incomplete phrase that is represented by an affix.
In DWs the [[rustem]] is the 2nd prefix from the left, any intermediate prefixes and the morpheme or compound.
In declensional words the [[rustem]] is the 2nd suffix from the right, any intermediate suffixes and the DW.
In UWs the [[rustem]] is the 2nd suffix from the right, any intermediate suffixes and the morpheme or compound.
In a DW like this: zolozqlozrlox1 the rustem is zqlozrlox1 but the 1st rustem is x1 and the 2nd rustem is zrlox1.
In a declensional word like this: zolozqlozrlox1leopleqp the rustem is zolozqlozrlox1leop but the 1st rustem is x1, the 2nd is zrlox1, the 3rd is zqlozrlox1 and the fourth is zolozqlozrlox1.
In an UW like this: x1leopleqp the rustem is x1leop but the 1st rustem is x1.
A phrase is actually a phrase head and maybe a phrase tail (a phrase head for sure and maybe a phrase tail).
A phrase head is actually one term xor one term as a relativized head.
A complex phrase is more than one phrase head and maybe one xor more than one phrase tail.
A complex phrase head is more than one term xor more than one term as a relativized head xor more than one term and more than one term as a relativized head.
Complex phrases are part of complex sentences.
Subject suffix could be: x1 k d function equal function of subject in sentence this.
Object suffix could be: x1 k d function equal function of object in sentence this.
Indirect object suffix could be: x1 k d function equal function of indirect object in sentence this.
Selbri is jus' a generic term for verb and preposition, so within a sentence primary and secondary selbri... are still selbri. Selbri can't be used to identify the function of a selbri within a sentence.
Primary selbri retain their function... of describing an event while secondary selbri take on a new function of augmenting an event.
If I indicate the primary selbri/s then I don't have to indicate the secondary selbri/s. Since the secondary selbri/s could be many this is a productive brevity scheme.
Primary suffix could be: x1 k d function equal function of primary selbri in sentence this.
Phrase tail openers and closers will always be used. This way coselbri can never be mistaken for primary selbri or coselbri in relative clauses in phrase tails in phrases functioning as arguements.
If only one arguement is moved out of place to the highlighted position everything else just moves to the right and only that arguement's range of thematic roles needs to be indicated.
If only one arguement is moved out of place to some position other than the highlighted position then only the arguements after it move to the right. Ex: PS, S, CS1, O, IO, CS/s.
With PS, S, O, IO, CS as a standard word order and with the rules above S would have to be indicated when it's in the highlighted position.
Tense or... temporal arguements always precede the primary selbri.
I may need a "characteristic of" (they might call it an "attributive of") and a "property of" which can be subdivided into various types of possession. A generic one for all of them though may still be used.
Inflectional (declensional and conjugational) words may be like compound words in that they may sometimes represent only part of the meaning.
The thematic roles of core arguements are determined by their selbri.
The thematic roles or uncore arguements (core arguements of selbri that function as secondary selbri) are determined... by the primary selbri.
Core semantic, syntactic arguements and core semantic, unsyntactic arguements.
Uncore semantic, syntactic arguements and uncore semantic, unsyntactic arguements.
Uncore unsemantic, syntactic arguements and uncore unsemantic, unsyntactic arguements.
Uncore semantic syntactic xor unsyntactic arguements are indexed on the selbri.
The exact thematic roles, though determined by the selbri, may not be easily discernable, so: S, DO and IO are generic terms for a limited but unknown range of thematic roles.
Ss and DOs are core arguements.
IOs are uncore arguements.
Ss, DOs and IOs are semantic arguements.
~Shawn Savoie~
~Ottawa, Ontario, Canada~