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

Re: A directionality operator for word coining

Expand Messages
  • Matthew George
    A few (hopefully) intelligent questions: Shouldn t the translation of *sarhala* be to illuminate rather than to glow ? Glowing doesn t imply or require an
    Message 1 of 6 , Sep 20, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      A few (hopefully) intelligent questions:

      Shouldn't the translation of *sarhala* be 'to illuminate' rather than 'to
      glow'? Glowing doesn't imply or require an object (in English), but
      illuminating does - a thing does not illuminate without something to be
      illuminated.

      Are non-object-oriented verbs even permitted?

      What happens if the *ar-* prefix is attached to verbs that aren't
      object-oriented? Particularly the verb for 'to be' or 'to exist', if one
      exists in this hypothetical language system. It would seem to require a
      very different way of conceptualizing and talking about existence than
      occurs in the languages I'm familiar with, although not so unfamiliar in
      philosophical circles.

      Matt G.
    • Daniel Bowman
      This construction is not canonical Angosey; I thought of it last week without a chance to play with it much. So (unfortunately) I cannot study the Angosey
      Message 2 of 6 , Sep 22, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        This construction is not canonical Angosey; I thought of it last week
        without a chance to play with it much. So (unfortunately) I cannot study
        the Angosey corpus to tell you how it really works.

        That being said, I think Scott's suggestion is correct. My conception of
        how "ar" would work is similar to the middle voice as I understand it from
        the Wikipedia article.

        @Alex: I meant to say "maybe 'ar' originally meant 'moving inward." So
        your intuition is correct in this case: the unmarked verb "sarhala" means
        "glow" (light is being emitted), "ar-sarhala" would mean "illuminated"
        (light is coming from some, possibly unspecified, source onto the object).

        However, "ar" is a directionality reverser: the verb "tseya" means to move
        upwards from the observer, "ar-tseya" would mean to descend from on high
        towards an observer.

        I wonder if I am developing negation words for specific aspects of verbs?
        For example "ar" reverses the meaning of the verb, but only for verbs with
        implied directionality. Thus Matt's question is: it can't happen for "to
        be." Interesting. I will have to think about this.


        2013/9/20 Matthew George <matt.msg@...>

        > A few (hopefully) intelligent questions:
        >
        > Shouldn't the translation of *sarhala* be 'to illuminate' rather than 'to
        > glow'? Glowing doesn't imply or require an object (in English), but
        > illuminating does - a thing does not illuminate without something to be
        > illuminated.
        >
        > Are non-object-oriented verbs even permitted?
        >
        > What happens if the *ar-* prefix is attached to verbs that aren't
        > object-oriented? Particularly the verb for 'to be' or 'to exist', if one
        > exists in this hypothetical language system. It would seem to require a
        > very different way of conceptualizing and talking about existence than
        > occurs in the languages I'm familiar with, although not so unfamiliar in
        > philosophical circles.
        >
        > Matt G.
        >
      • Matthew George
        Perhaps it could apply to to cause to exist , because there s a direction of causality (if only an abstract, metaphorical one). Or for parenthood - to be
        Message 3 of 6 , Sep 23, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          Perhaps it could apply to "to cause to exist", because there's a direction
          of causality (if only an abstract, metaphorical one). Or for parenthood -
          "to be the parent of" vs. "to be one's own parent". I grant there wouldn't
          be many cases where turning these verbs inward would be useful, unless
          you're talking about certain divine entities, advanced mathematics, or
          Robert Heinlein's "All You Zombies".

          Alternatively, perhaps 'ar-' is specifically and literally spatial, so
          unless the verb is talking about a physical direction the prefix cannot be
          applied.

          Matt G.
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.