Posted by Kazper at 2:18pm Jan 17 '09Perhaps a better way to describe selbri concepts is like, for example, this: selbri k that subject respro using [description] and that possess valency that equals [valency] b
"run" would be: run equal selbri verb action k that subject respro using [description that a physician or biologist could probably give] and that possess valency that equal g subject relater-primary f b
Valency could be: the number and type of relational and relater-secondaryal functions that a selbri concept "requires" when it is functioning as a relater-primary in a sentence. (More particular relations may not be determined by the selbri but by the nxyd that functions as a relation.)
The valency of, for example, two words with the same prefix but different rustems can be different. An example with "zo" representing: selbri k that subject respro using [rustem]:
zolohammer
zolopiano
The valency of the former is: subject relater-primary direct object
The valency of the latter is: subject relater-primary
These words convey part of the meaning they represent but not a complete description and not the valency part.
The valency is determined by the concept by... visualizing it, I guess.
The concept that is represented by hammer (C-hammer) equals a noun
The concept that is represented by zolohammer (C-zolohammer) equals a verb ("C-hammer" is not a verb. "C-hammer" is part of a verb phrase that describes a concept that is categorized as a verb.)
In relative clauses where the relhed is the subject the relative conjunction and the respro are ellipsed.
Since I have to indicate the syntactic function of selbri that function as relaters I can't have terms that represent incomplete sentences because I think it's likely that in most cases it will only be the front end of the selbri that's exposed and not the back end. Since the indicater is a suffix I can't attach it directly to the selbri. I would instead be attaching it to the last term in the incomplete sentence that's represented by the term. An incomplete sentence is a meaning but it's not really a semantic unit like a complete phrase.
Ex.: "vo" = in direction of. If I were to attach the relater-secondary function indicater suffix to "vo" I would technically be attaching it to "of". It could probably be pretty easily understood that it attaches to "in" but it seems kinda messy. A messy that I'm not content to live with. In this case I could just have a new prefix: "vo" = direction k of [rustem] b. So: x1 in volohome.
One phrase is one description of one concept.
Two phrases are two descriptions of two concepts.
A term that represents two concepts that functions as a subject represents two concepts functioning as subjects. For this reason I think I'm gonna make it illegal for terms to represent more than one phrase. Free terms then can represent a complete phrase xor a complete sentence xor some complete sentences.
Category phraseley equals Category of functions of concepts within/relative to a phrase.
Category sentenceley equals Category of functions of concepts within/relative to a sentence.
There are no semantic concepts and syntactic concepts. I think what I meant by semantic concept category in reference to C-verb is a category of concepts determined more by the conepts themselves then by... where they might be or what they might function as.
Nouns, adjectives, selbris and adverbs, for example, are not categories of concepts determined by conceptal functions within/relative to a sentence. They are categories of concepts determined by the... innate, inherent characteristics of the concepts themselves.
If only nxydlesi (nouns, adjectives and adverbs) can be relations and only selbris can be relaters then one does not need to see, for example, a noun in a sentence to know if it is a relation.
A contraction is a free, divisible term that's made out of a combination of parts for sure and maybe wholes (ex.: "fet*ok" is a contraction consisting of part of one term and the whole of the other) that represents a complete phrase xor a complete sentence xor some complete sentences. Its shape, at times, can convey, somewhat, part of the meaning it represents.
"action k that subject respro using hammer". If one knows what a hammer is and what its primary function is then the above phrase should summon to mind the primary action that one engages in when they use a hammer according to its primary function. With this visualization I think is where the valency of the action as relater is determined.
~Shawn Savoie~
~Ottawa, Ontario, Canada~
"run" would be: run equal selbri verb action k that subject respro using [description that a physician or biologist could probably give] and that possess valency that equal g subject relater-primary f b
Valency could be: the number and type of relational and relater-secondaryal functions that a selbri concept "requires" when it is functioning as a relater-primary in a sentence. (More particular relations may not be determined by the selbri but by the nxyd that functions as a relation.)
The valency of, for example, two words with the same prefix but different rustems can be different. An example with "zo" representing: selbri k that subject respro using [rustem]:
zolohammer
zolopiano
The valency of the former is: subject relater-primary direct object
The valency of the latter is: subject relater-primary
These words convey part of the meaning they represent but not a complete description and not the valency part.
The valency is determined by the concept by... visualizing it, I guess.
The concept that is represented by hammer (C-hammer) equals a noun
The concept that is represented by zolohammer (C-zolohammer) equals a verb ("C-hammer" is not a verb. "C-hammer" is part of a verb phrase that describes a concept that is categorized as a verb.)
In relative clauses where the relhed is the subject the relative conjunction and the respro are ellipsed.
Since I have to indicate the syntactic function of selbri that function as relaters I can't have terms that represent incomplete sentences because I think it's likely that in most cases it will only be the front end of the selbri that's exposed and not the back end. Since the indicater is a suffix I can't attach it directly to the selbri. I would instead be attaching it to the last term in the incomplete sentence that's represented by the term. An incomplete sentence is a meaning but it's not really a semantic unit like a complete phrase.
Ex.: "vo" = in direction of. If I were to attach the relater-secondary function indicater suffix to "vo" I would technically be attaching it to "of". It could probably be pretty easily understood that it attaches to "in" but it seems kinda messy. A messy that I'm not content to live with. In this case I could just have a new prefix: "vo" = direction k of [rustem] b. So: x1 in volohome.
One phrase is one description of one concept.
Two phrases are two descriptions of two concepts.
A term that represents two concepts that functions as a subject represents two concepts functioning as subjects. For this reason I think I'm gonna make it illegal for terms to represent more than one phrase. Free terms then can represent a complete phrase xor a complete sentence xor some complete sentences.
Category phraseley equals Category of functions of concepts within/relative to a phrase.
Category sentenceley equals Category of functions of concepts within/relative to a sentence.
There are no semantic concepts and syntactic concepts. I think what I meant by semantic concept category in reference to C-verb is a category of concepts determined more by the conepts themselves then by... where they might be or what they might function as.
Nouns, adjectives, selbris and adverbs, for example, are not categories of concepts determined by conceptal functions within/relative to a sentence. They are categories of concepts determined by the... innate, inherent characteristics of the concepts themselves.
If only nxydlesi (nouns, adjectives and adverbs) can be relations and only selbris can be relaters then one does not need to see, for example, a noun in a sentence to know if it is a relation.
A contraction is a free, divisible term that's made out of a combination of parts for sure and maybe wholes (ex.: "fet*ok" is a contraction consisting of part of one term and the whole of the other) that represents a complete phrase xor a complete sentence xor some complete sentences. Its shape, at times, can convey, somewhat, part of the meaning it represents.
"action k that subject respro using hammer". If one knows what a hammer is and what its primary function is then the above phrase should summon to mind the primary action that one engages in when they use a hammer according to its primary function. With this visualization I think is where the valency of the action as relater is determined.
~Shawn Savoie~
~Ottawa, Ontario, Canada~