Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Looking for a term

Expand Messages
  • Scotto Hlad
    Thanks all for the info. The verb portion may not necessarily be a verb per say. Lets think in terms of an adjective like blue. When combined with the
    Message 1 of 5 , Sep 3 7:42 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Thanks all for the info.

      The verb portion may not necessarily be a verb per say. Lets think in terms
      of an adjective like "blue." When combined with the aspectus (my proposed
      term) inflected for inchoative, the combination means "becomes blue, turns
      blue etc"

      Xyz blue = he turns blue
      Xyz cold = it is getting cold
      Yesterday xyz blue = yesterday he turned blue.

      Etc.

      Thoughts?

      S
      -----Original Message-----
      From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:CONLANG@...] On
      Behalf Of Javier BF
      Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2006 5:05 PM
      To: CONLANG@...
      Subject: Re: Looking for a term

      On Sat, 2 Sep 2006 10:34:07 +0200, taliesin the storyteller
      <taliesin-conlang@...> wrote:

      >* Scotto Hlad said on 2006-09-02 09:27:29 +0200
      >> I'm looking for a term to describe a particular form in an a priori
      >> language I'm creating.
      >>
      >> I plan to use verb aspects only. What I'd like to do is use the verb
      >> plus an auxiliary word to create the verb in the appropriate aspect.
      >> This auxiliary word will be specific enough to include the pronoun
      associated with it.
      >>
      >> Here is an example
      >>
      >> xyz= 1st person singluar ingressive
      >>
      >> Xyw walk = I start to walk
      >> Xyx walk= you start to walk
      >> Xyz walk=he starts to walk.
      >>
      >> Is there a linguistic term for this auxilary word to indicate person
      >> and aspect? I have toyed with the idea of calling it the "aspectus"
      >
      >This very much looks like Basque, except the "auxiliary" follows the
      >meaning-carrying verb in Basque. Basque uses the term "synthetic verb"
      >for the "auxiliary", since it is inflected. "Walk" would in Basque be
      >called a "periphrastic" verb.


      Except that in Basque the aspectual part (perfect/continuous/prospective) is
      mostly expressed by suffixes appended to the lexical verb, rather than in
      the auxiliary (which mainly indicates person, mood, and past/non-past
      tense):

      "ikusi dut" ("I have seen it", lit. "I have it seen") "ikusten dut ("I see
      it", lit. "I have it in seeing") "ikusiko dut" ("I will see it", lit. "I
      have it of seen") "ikusi nuen" ("I saw it", lit. "I had it seen") "ikusten
      nuen" ("I used to see it", lit. "I had it in seeing") "ikusiko nuen" ("I was
      going to see it", lit. "I had it of seen")

      OTOH, English itself uses similar constructions (a conjugated auxiliary verb
      agreeing with the subject, and a lexical verb in some non-finite form) to
      express most aspects, such as perfect ("I have done", "she has done"),
      continuous ("I am doing", "she is doing"), ingressive ("I start to do", "she
      starts to do"), etc.
    • John Vertical
      ... It s called the negativ verb , so along that model, maybe yours would be the aspectual verb - or an , since I gather you re going to have more than
      Message 2 of 5 , Sep 6 5:29 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        >On 9/2/06, taliesin the storyteller <taliesin-conlang@...> wrote:
        > > * Scotto Hlad said on 2006-09-02 09:27:29 +0200
        > > > I'm looking for a term to describe a particular form in an a priori
        >language
        > > > I'm creating.
        > >
        > > This very much looks like Basque, except the "auxiliary" follows the
        > > meaning-carrying verb in Basque.
        >
        >And it reminded me of negation in Finnish, which IIRC uses an
        >inflected-for-person auxiliary to indicate the negation followed by a
        >not-inflected-for-person form of the meaning verb. (I'm not sure which
        >of the two is inflected for tense or aspect.)
        >
        >Cheers,
        >--
        >Philip Newton

        It's called "the negativ verb", so along that model, maybe yours would be
        "the aspectual verb" - or "an", since I gather you're going to have more
        than one?

        -The actual verb in Finnish comes after the auxiliary in a participle form.
        All TAM marking except imperativ are also on this participle; historically
        there were more forms, but it's still been a crippled paradigm already in
        Proto-Uralic...


        --- Scotto Hlad wrote:
        >The verb portion may not necessarily be a verb per say. Lets think in terms
        >of an adjective like "blue." When combined with the aspectus (my proposed
        >term) inflected for inchoative, the combination means "becomes blue, turns
        >blue etc"
        >
        >Xyz blue = he turns blue
        >Xyz cold = it is getting cold
        >Yesterday xyz blue = yesterday he turned blue.
        >
        >Etc.
        >
        >Thoughts?

        Interesting.

        So when the "verb part" IS a verb, what form is it in? I don't think you
        mentioned that. Is it just a generic quotation-form-infinitiv, or something
        more specific?

        John Vertical
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.