183476Re: Further info on tense marking for nouns
- Oct 12, 2011
>ha, i suppose nothing whatsoever. but then, at least in semitic, the nouns
> Yes, but what is there to stop a conlanger from reanalyzing melech as also
> a verb (or all three as tense marked nouns) in the first example?
corresponding to verbs some in all different shapes and sizes -- i.e. the
CeCeC form of *melekh* cannot be generalized in the way that the verbal
CaCaC form of *malakh* can. most verbs in hebrew have a Qal stem (a perfect
form with the CaCaC form) but far fewer can take the CeCeC noun shape and
have an intuitive meaning. so in other words, though it works for
*melekh*it wouldn't work (at least in hebrew) for other stuff. e.g.
*shemesh* is "sun" but there's no corresponding verb; likewise *kathav* is
"to write (he wrote)" but **kethev* is no extant noun (that i know of).
>i love you.
granted, if your conlang had a more predictable nominal morphology i can
definitely see it working. although, at least in your example, it seems
like you're verbing a noun rather than nouning a verb. do you mean it too
look more like this?:
David melekh = David [is] king(PRES)
David malakh = David [is] king(PAST)
David yimlokh = David [is] king(FUT)
another thing to consider is that *malakh* is more or less a stative verb,
i.e. it describes more a condition or a status than an action. it really
can almost be translated by "to be king" (and often is). so try thinking
about something more active, like *shavar* "to smash." i'm sure there's a
way to make it work.
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Adam Walker <carraxan@...> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Matthew Boutilier
> > >
> > > Now I don't really speak Hebrew, but
> > > ordinarily I would interpret "Adonai melech," as lord zero-copula king
> > with
> > > two nouns juxtaposed to show equation. But then how to interpret the
> > > clearly parallel "Adonai malach" and "Adonai yimloch"? Is this a case
> > > tense marking on a noun?
> > >
> > so...in semitic (maybe you know this) you have nouns and verbs and
> > adjectives and all kinds of parts of speech deriving from triliteral
> > (three-consonant) roots. in this it's case it's M-L-K, which gives us
> > nouns *and* verbs. melekh "king" is a noun (in hebrew, after vowels and
> > when non-geminated, k > kh /x/). but malakh "to rule" is a *verb* in
> > sense. "adonai malakh" = LORD ruled-3ms. the inflection goes malakh
> > (3ms),
> > mal'khah (3fs), malakhta (2ms), and so on. yimlokh is a different form
> > the same verb. yimlokh "he rules / will rule," timlokh "she rules / will
> > rule," etc. kind of weird that in the perfect hebrew uses suffixes but in
> > the imperfect it uses prefixes to indicate person, number, gender. but
> > does (not uncommon in semitic...but just as a side note i was reading
> > this apparently reflects a historical ergativity in proto-afro-asiatic).
> > matt
> > Yes, but what is there to stop a conlanger from reanalyzing melech as
> a verb (or all three as tense marked nouns) in the first example? and thus
> setting up a situation where you could evolve a Semitic type language into
> nounless (or verbless) language depending on how you developed things and
> how you described/analyzed them? I understand that my analysis isn't
> concidered true of Hebrew in any stage of its development in the real
> world. But why couldn't a situation like the one I presented be
> reanalyzed/engeneered into a situation where you need to analyze it as
> marked nouns something like
> David melech. David kings.
> Davad malach. David kang.
> Yidvod yimloch. David will king.
> Now do you have three sentences composed entirely of tense-marked nouns, or
> three sentences composed entirely of verbs -- some of which are proper
> names? Either way it's weird, but why couldn't it work?
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>