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

Re: Adverbial verbs(like stative verbs)?

Expand Messages
  • R A Brown
    ... [snip] ... Yes, it is, isn t it! But to return to the matter of someone who wishes to eschew adverbs (and much else besides) and have only nouns and
    Message 1 of 20 , Feb 1 2:49 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Garth Wallace wrote:
      > On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 10:27 PM, David Peterson <dedalvs@...> wrote:
      [snip]
      >> Don't need adverbs?! Please! For a language, you don't need
      >> anything *but* adverbs!
      >>
      >> (Cue "here comes the relevant link" music...)
      >>
      >> http://specgram.com/CLII.g/02.gladstone.shigudo.html
      >>
      >> I didn't write this one, but it's a lot of fun!
      >
      > Ha! Brilliant!

      Yes, it is, isn't it!

      But to return to the matter of someone who wishes to eschew
      adverbs (and much else besides) and have only nouns and
      verbs.....
      ----------------------------------------------------

      Philip Newton wrote:
      [snip]
      > That works well for adverbs that are related to
      adjectives ("in an ADJ
      > manner", for example). But "adverb", at least in some
      descriptions of
      > some languages, is also a catch-all class for all sorts
      of particles
      > such as "tomorrow" and "there".

      Yep - practically all the discussion so far has related to
      what we, back in the 1950s, called "adverbs of manner" and,
      indeed, solely to descriptive adjectives; and as it has been
      pointed out, there is no real problem in dispensing with the
      category "adverb [of manner]." Many natlangs don't have a
      discrete category for them.

      'Tomorrow' may, of course, be used as a noun, so presumably
      this can have some noun flexion. But 'there' ("adverb of
      place") and 'then' ("adverb of time") seem to me a little
      trickier.

      When I saw Philip's 'there', my immediate response was "[in]
      that place." Then I thought "Hey, how's Vincent going to
      express 'that'? It's adjectival, but a stative verb doesn't
      seem appropriate."

      --
      Ray
      ==================================
      http://www.carolandray.plus.com
      ==================================
      Nid rhy hen neb i ddysgu.
      There's none too old to learn.
      [WELSH PROVERB]
    • David McCann
      ... The nearest to this in natural languages was the extinct Californian language Yana. It had nouns, verbs, one preposition, and a few demonstratives. For
      Message 2 of 20 , Feb 1 9:25 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        On Sun, 2010-01-31 at 18:54 -0500, Vincent Pistelli wrote:
        > I know that there are stative verbs but are their verbs that work as
        > adjectives too? I am trying to make a language with only two parts of
        > speech: nouns and verbs. Adjectives are easily eliminated through stative
        > verbs, but is their a way to have verbs that work as adverbs? It seems like
        > it would be more difficult because most adjectives are usually go with verbs
        > like to be. However, adverbs can go with almost any verb. Do you know of
        > any language that does this? Can you possibly provide examples? Thanks!

        The nearest to this in natural languages was the extinct Californian
        language Yana. It had nouns, verbs, one preposition, and a few
        demonstratives.

        For adverbs, you can have

        1. case forms of nouns, like Arabic ġadan 'tomorrow', accusative of ġadu
        'next day'

        2. verbs, like Akan
        ɔtaa ba ha 'he-pursue come here' = 'he often comes here'
        ohintaw kɔ hɔ 'he hide go there' = 'he goes there secretly'

        3. verbal affixes, like Yana -xkid 'slowly', -ca 'by night' or Eskimo
        -nirluk 'badly'.
      • Douglas Koller
        ... In Chinese, tomorrow is a noun and no inflection is required (Tomorrow is the day after the first day of the rest of your life.) (I ll go there
        Message 3 of 20 , Feb 1 9:25 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          ----- "R A Brown" <ray@...> wrote:

          > Philip Newton wrote:
          > [snip]

          > > That works well for adverbs that are related to
          > adjectives ("in an ADJ
          > > manner", for example). But "adverb", at least in some
          > descriptions of
          > > some languages, is also a catch-all class for all sorts
          > of particles
          > > such as "tomorrow" and "there".

          > Yep - practically all the discussion so far has related to
          > what we, back in the 1950s, called "adverbs of manner" and,
          > indeed, solely to descriptive adjectives; and as it has been
          > pointed out, there is no real problem in dispensing with the
          > category "adverb [of manner]." Many natlangs don't have a
          > discrete category for them.

          > 'Tomorrow' may, of course, be used as a noun, so presumably
          > this can have some noun flexion. But 'there' ("adverb of
          > place") and 'then' ("adverb of time") seem to me a little
          > trickier.

          In Chinese, "tomorrow" is a noun and no inflection is required (Tomorrow is the day after the first day of the rest of your life.) (I'll go there tomorrow.). "There" is a noun. "Then", temporally, is "that time" (I was just a child then.). Causally, it could be "(as a) result" (If it's Tuesday, then it must be Belgium.). Sequentially, maybe something like "le lendemain", but for the next moment (I went to the train station, then I bought a magazine.)

          > When I saw Philip's 'there', my immediate response was "[in]
          > that place." Then I thought "Hey, how's Vincent going to
          > express 'that'? It's adjectival, but a stative verb doesn't
          > seem appropriate."

          Vincent didn't say compound nouns were out of bounds, so why not just let it be a (pro)noun: "He doesn't like that." That way, "that place" and "that time" are compound nouns like "firehouse". If you allow compound nouns, you might also get some differences in meaning:

          be-fast train - a fast train
          vs.
          fastness (i.e. speed) train - an express

          As for "*in* that place", (back to Chinese), make "in" a noun: that place('s) inside. "zhuo1zi shang4", "on the table" is "(the) table('s) 'on-top-of-ness'", so you can get things like:

          Shang4 you3 tian1tang2 Above has Heaven
          Xia4 you3 Su1Hang2 Below has Suzhou and Hangzhou

          Kou
        • R A Brown
          ... [snip] ... I know - just like in English in fact :) But in the sentence I ll go there tomorrow , tomorrow is traditionally analyzed as an _adverb_ of
          Message 4 of 20 , Feb 2 12:46 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            Douglas Koller wrote:
            > ----- "R A Brown" <ray@...> wrote:
            [snip]
            >
            >> 'Tomorrow' may, of course, be used as a noun, so
            >> presumably this can have some noun flexion. But 'there'
            >> ("adverb of place") and 'then' ("adverb of time") seem
            >> to me a little trickier.
            >
            > In Chinese, "tomorrow" is a noun and no inflection is
            > required (Tomorrow is the day after the first day of the
            > rest of your life.) (I'll go there tomorrow.).

            I know - just like in English in fact :)

            But in the sentence "I'll go there tomorrow", "tomorrow" is
            traditionally analyzed as an _adverb_ of time. Our English
            teacher used to drum into us the maxim "By their deeds shall
            ye know them" when it came to English grammar; i.e. it was
            no use looking for inflexions as in, say, Latin - one had to
            look at the _function_ of a word within the sentence. The
            same, of course, applies to Chinese.

            If I understood Vincent, he wants to scrap the category
            'adverb'. And why not, indeed? It may be that in his conlang
            the noun for "tomorrow" can function in similar manner to
            English & Chinese without marked inflexion; that's why I
            wrote _can_ have some noun flexion. He may well not have any
            flexion, but use syntax instead.

            [snip]
            >
            >> When I saw Philip's 'there', my immediate response was
            >> "[in] that place." Then I thought "Hey, how's Vincent
            >> going to express 'that'? It's adjectival, but a stative
            >> verb doesn't seem appropriate."
            >
            > Vincent didn't say compound nouns were out of bounds, so
            > why not just let it be a (pro)noun: "He doesn't like
            > that." That way, "that place" and "that time" are
            > compound nouns like "firehouse".

            Yep - that one possibility. I was thinking - though I didn't
            write it - of having the (pro)noun "that" and the other noun
            in apposition. This, it seems to me, is what happened in
            ancient Greek. If a noun was definite,any descriptive
            adjective or, indeed, adjectival phrase, had to be preceded
            by the definite article, thus:
            ARTICLE ADJECTIVE NOUN _or_
            ARTICLE NOUN ARTICLE ADJECTIVE

            Demonstratives were _never_ used like that; we always find
            either:
            DEMONSTRATIVE ARTICLE NOUN _or_
            ARTICLE NOUN DEMONSTRATIVE
            Where the demonstrative is in apposition with the
            article+noun phrase.

            [snip]
            >
            > As for "*in* that place", (back to Chinese), make "in" a
            > noun: that place('s) inside. "zhuo1zi shang4", "on the
            > table" is "(the) table('s) 'on-top-of-ness'", so you can
            > get things like:

            Yep - or you could use a verb like the Chinese _zai4_ "to be
            [in/at etc]" - "being-in that+place"

            There are several possibilities.

            --
            Ray
            ==================================
            http://www.carolandray.plus.com
            ==================================
            Nid rhy hen neb i ddysgu.
            There's none too old to learn.
            [WELSH PROVERB]
          • Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets
            ... That s how I do it in Moten, which totally lacks adverbs. Noun phrases are used instead. ... They are pronouns in Moten, and have nominal morphology. ...
            Message 5 of 20 , Feb 2 7:30 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              >
              >
              >
              > 'Tomorrow' may, of course, be used as a noun, so presumably this can have
              > some noun flexion.


              That's how I do it in Moten, which totally lacks adverbs. Noun phrases are
              used instead.


              > But 'there' ("adverb of place") and 'then' ("adverb of time") seem to me a
              > little trickier.
              >
              >
              They are pronouns in Moten, and have nominal morphology.


              > When I saw Philip's 'there', my immediate response was "[in] that place."
              > Then I thought "Hey, how's Vincent going to express 'that'? It's adjectival,
              > but a stative verb doesn't seem appropriate."
              >
              >
              Moten is different in that respect: it also lacks adjectives, which are
              simply a special use of nominal. Any nominal apposed after its head has an
              adjectival meaning. That includes the demonstrative pronouns (which are
              separate, although somewhat related, to the spatial and temporal pronouns).

              You can check my blog if you want. I discuss those pronouns in "Moten, Part
              II", and does have a little information on how to translate some kinds of
              adverbs.
              --
              Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.

              http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
              http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
            • Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets
              ... That s how Moten distinguishes nouns in nominal and adjectival use, through syntax only. ... Indeed, all those structures are still valid in Modern Greek.
              Message 6 of 20 , Feb 2 7:42 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                On 2 February 2010 09:46, R A Brown <ray@...> wrote:

                >
                > If I understood Vincent, he wants to scrap the category 'adverb'. And why
                > not, indeed? It may be that in his conlang the noun for "tomorrow" can
                > function in similar manner to English & Chinese without marked inflexion;
                > that's why I wrote _can_ have some noun flexion. He may well not have any
                > flexion, but use syntax instead.
                >
                >
                >
                That's how Moten distinguishes nouns in nominal and adjectival use, through
                syntax only.


                >
                > Yep - that one possibility. I was thinking - though I didn't write it - of
                > having the (pro)noun "that" and the other noun in apposition. This, it seems
                > to me, is what happened in ancient Greek. If a noun was definite,any
                > descriptive adjective or, indeed, adjectival phrase, had to be preceded by
                > the definite article, thus:
                > ARTICLE ADJECTIVE NOUN _or_
                > ARTICLE NOUN ARTICLE ADJECTIVE
                >
                > Demonstratives were _never_ used like that; we always find either:
                > DEMONSTRATIVE ARTICLE NOUN _or_
                > ARTICLE NOUN DEMONSTRATIVE
                > Where the demonstrative is in apposition with the article+noun phrase.
                >
                >
                Indeed, all those structures are still valid in Modern Greek. I never
                thought of the special demonstrative structures to be a demonstrative
                *pronoun* apposed to a nominal phrase, but it does fit the data indeed.


                > Yep - or you could use a verb like the Chinese _zai4_ "to be [in/at etc]" -
                > "being-in that+place"
                >
                > There are several possibilities.
                >
                >
                In Moten, I got completely rid of both adjectives and adverbs, and I haven't
                missed them a bit. And that was without even converting adjectives into
                stative verbs!
                --
                Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.

                http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
                http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.