[NGL-project] Subject: Re: [NGL] NGL text
Jack Durst
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 00:27:31 -0800 (PST)
From: Gerald Koenig <j...@NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: [NGL-project] Subject: Re: [NGL] NGL text
From: Gerald Koenig <j...@NETCOM.COM>
>
>From: Jack Durst <sp...@sierra.net>
>
>On Sun, 5 Mar 2000, Stephen DeGrace wrote:
>
>> >*kormarpa::-pier, above-ocean-walk.
>> Hmm. How about using a formal derivation with the head "walk", like
>> {pakemar}, "walk-above-ocean" or {pamarka} "ocean-walk-place". This
>I like Stephen's derived form better. It captures the meaning desired
>precisely, and without the need for any new morphemes. Though it isn't
>nessicary, I second {pamarka} for "pier/boardwalk".
Well I'm not exactly verbixgeflait with this solution. The reordering
of the words, putting the head "pa" first to fit the derivation rules
is fine with me; the problem is the shift from <kor>="above" to
<ka>=place. I can see <pamar> for boardwalk or ocean walk, in fact there
is an "Ocean Walk" here. I'd like to see, and I propose,
pamarkor::- pier/platform over water.
>> wouldn't need formal acceptance, it would merely be recorded as a
>> derivation to watch for. Most derivations don't go through the
xxxxxx
>I agree with you that a second is unnessicary, but it never hurts to show
>support... :) Whether or not the term goes officiel is determined by
>frequency more than anything else. If a more specific term is frequently
>usefull, then the word will show up often and there'll be no question as
>to status. Even if not, it's still a clear derivation.
>> >*siemael::-thunder, sky-hammer,
>> Hmm. In my opinion, this really ought to be {maelsi'e}, especially in
>> the formal mode, because "hammer" is plainly the head and NGL is a
>> head-first language, and that in any event I'm not sure if this is a
>> proper form for dictionary "officialness", it's more of a literary
>I would tend to agree there (and am mildly embarrassed I didn't catch the
>head-last problem).
It seems to me that the suggested derivation <niunfan> does the job in
the same or less wordspace. With "fan" meaning thunder/lighting, "niun"
has got to mean the sound of one or both, so it's very clear. So I am
dropping this proposal for *siemael, instead
I second <niunfan>.
However if I were to defend <siemael>, I would stick with the present
order for metaphorical and historical reasons. Thor is the Norse god
of thunder, and thunder is said to be the sound of his hammer. The
Sanscrit phrase, dyash(sp)-pitar means sky-father, or God, so the word
order has strong precedent on a natlang basis, which is one of my
criteria. I would also drop the apostrophe/accent just for
simplification. If we can figure out meanings of generally defined
words from context, we can certainly figure out some spelling
simplifications and a dropped syllable.
>It isn't. I'd read it as metaphorical and puzzle through the possible
>meanings if I encountered it in a text. The derivation isn't one which
>would posess any literal meaning (which I would think would require a
>second for the metaphorical sense) so, though I prefer a plain derivation,
>it's certainly an acceptable form.
>> >*tertok::-threaten
>> I have an alternative proposal for you and Jack. Since {tok} is
>> plainly an NGL word, why don't we back-derive and figure out what
>> {ter} means? I think it means "threat".
Actually it means <terror|terrorizing>, and I could build some
derivations from that, but since you both like it so well as <threat>, and
it lends itself to derivations from there, I'm going to go along with it.
Could we propose, second and
>> accept:
>>
>> *ter N - threat
Yes.
>Excelent idea! The meaning is nessicary and common enough to merrit a
>morpheme of this length, so I second.
>
I don't have time to reply to your really great post on derivation
and the philosophy of the language right this minute, but I will be
putting it in the writekit soon. I feel we are all drawing closer on
our current vision for the language. I look forward to comments from
Stephen and Julian, and Mia if she can get away from making kid's
sandwiches long enough. Carlos is preparing for his exams, so we'll
have to wait for him to return.
Jerry
>Sincerely,
> Jack Durst
>Sp...@sierra.net
>[this posting written in Net English]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planning a party? iParty.com is your complete source for party planning and
supplies, with everything you need to throw the perfect party!
http://click.egroups.com/1/1635/0/_/_/_/952417653/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Durst
> From: Gerald Koenig <j...@NETCOM.COM>
>
> >
> >From: Jack Durst <sp...@sierra.net>
> >
> >On Sun, 5 Mar 2000, Stephen DeGrace wrote:
> >
> >> >*kormarpa::-pier, above-ocean-walk.
> >> Hmm. How about using a formal derivation with the head "walk", like
> >> {pakemar}, "walk-above-ocean" or {pamarka} "ocean-walk-place". This
> >I like Stephen's derived form better. It captures the meaning desired
> >precisely, and without the need for any new morphemes. Though it isn't
> >nessicary, I second {pamarka} for "pier/boardwalk".
> Well I'm not exactly verbixgeflait with this solution. The reordering
> of the words, putting the head "pa" first to fit the derivation rules
> is fine with me; the problem is the shift from <kor>="above" to
> <ka>=place. I can see <pamar> for boardwalk or ocean walk, in fact there
> is an "Ocean Walk" here. I'd like to see, and I propose,
Either would work just as well, and {-ka} is the more common of the two
morphemes in both of our dialects.
There is a certain reluctance to use grammar words such as vectors in
derivations, the natural tendency is to interpret them as the start of the
next word. It's not bad when they're the head (as with {fuci} "future"),
but as a deriving element, I feel a competition for head status the way I
do with a verb in that position...
"boardwalk" does need to be {pamarka}, as otherwise it's a verb, "to walk
(along?) the ocean"
> pamarkor::- pier/platform over water.
This would be fine for the act of walking above the water (though it does
sound biblical to me...) but it's a verb, and would need to be derived
into a noun fo be good for Tokcir at least... {pamarkorka} would work...
> >> >*siemael::-thunder, sky-hammer,
> >> Hmm. In my opinion, this really ought to be {maelsi'e}, especially in
> >> the formal mode, because "hammer" is plainly the head and NGL is a
> >> head-first language, and that in any event I'm not sure if this is a
> >> proper form for dictionary "officialness", it's more of a literary
> >I would tend to agree there (and am mildly embarrassed I didn't catch the
> >head-last problem).
> It seems to me that the suggested derivation <niunfan> does the job in
> the same or less wordspace. With "fan" meaning thunder/lighting, "niun"
> has got to mean the sound of one or both, so it's very clear. So I am
> dropping this proposal for *siemael, instead
OK, nice to see it worked out...
> However if I were to defend <siemael>, I would stick with the present
> order for metaphorical and historical reasons. Thor is the Norse god
> of thunder, and thunder is said to be the sound of his hammer. The
> Sanscrit phrase, dyash(sp)-pitar means sky-father, or God, so the word
> order has strong precedent on a natlang basis, which is one of my
> criteria. I would also drop the apostrophe/accent just for
> simplification. If we can figure out meanings of generally defined
> words from context, we can certainly figure out some spelling
> simplifications and a dropped syllable.
It dawned on me while I was out getting my mail why your derivation didn't
strike me as odd... Though your translation is wrong, it properly should
be translated "hammer sky" as {si'e} is the head, thunder *is* a type of
weather, for which the metaphor of sky is fairly apt, and so {si'e} is
properly the head.
BTW: Last time I checked, ' was a letter in good standing in NGL, and
could no more be omitted without changing meaning than any other...
> >> >*tertok::-threaten
> >> I have an alternative proposal for you and Jack. Since {tok} is
> >> plainly an NGL word, why don't we back-derive and figure out what
> >> {ter} means? I think it means "threat".
> Actually it means <terror|terrorizing>, and I could build some
> derivations from that, but since you both like it so well as <threat>, and
> it lends itself to derivations from there, I'm going to go along with it.
Threat is the more derivationally usefull meaning...
> I don't have time to reply to your really great post on derivation
> and the philosophy of the language right this minute, but I will be
> putting it in the writekit soon. I feel we are all drawing closer on
> our current vision for the language. I look forward to comments from
> Stephen and Julian, and Mia if she can get away from making kid's
> sandwiches long enough. Carlos is preparing for his exams, so we'll
> have to wait for him to return.
Thanks, I look forward to any comments you may have, and to the comments
of everyone else as well. We don't talk about our language philosophies
nearly enough here.
Jack Durst
> Sorry if I've been out of this discussion, but I'm missing some of
> these posts.
The list is archived at http://www.onelist.com/
Just log in, go to NGL, and click on the archive...
Jack Durst
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 22:58:00 -0330
From: Stephen DeGrace <c72...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca>
Subject: Re: [NGL-project] Subject: Re: [NGL] NGL text
From: Stephen DeGrace <c72...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca>
Hi guys,
Sorry if I've been out of this discussion, but I'm missing some of
these posts.
Stephen
Jack Durst
> >> Well I'm not exactly verbixgeflait with this solution. The reordering
> >> of the words, putting the head "pa" first to fit the derivation rules
> >> is fine with me; the problem is the shift from <kor>="above" to
> >> <ka>=place. I can see <pamar> for boardwalk or ocean walk, in fact there
> >> is an "Ocean Walk" here. I'd like to see, and I propose,
> >Either would work just as well, and {-ka} is the more common of the two
> >morphemes in both of our dialects.
> >
> >There is a certain reluctance to use grammar words such as vectors in
> >derivations, the natural tendency is to interpret them as the start of the
> >next word. It's not bad when they're the head (as with {fuci} "future"),
> >but as a deriving element, I feel a competition for head status the way I
> >do with a verb in that position...
> Upstairs or stairsup? Well I guess it's a matter of style or
> sensibility, I feel that the vector adverbs are quite free to roam
> generally, and could go anywhere but the head in a derivative. The
My sense of them was the opposite, the most common derivational use for
vectors is probably going to be to create terms through derivation into
other parts of speach, so it gained a sort of head-ness from that.
> kor/ikor.. over/under/right of.. series does have to be adjacent to an
> object of reference, an Origin, immediately before or after. Perhaps I
> am so used to vector it seems natural to me.
Quite possible. I'd love to see more learning materials published at the
basic level in vectors.
> >but it's a verb, and would need to be derived
> >into a noun fo be good for Tokcir at least... {pamarkorka} would work...
> itm pa
> tp N, V
> st acc JD
> def step, foot, walk, emphatic not
> [VTT: simple past ]
>
> OK I can see that anyword-ka must be a noun because it is a place, but
> where is it written that pa cannot be a noun if not so marked? I see
Nowhere, but the "special meaning" rule comes into play here, since the
most reasonable interpretation of the morpheme is in its verb sense, (and
moreover, the one we know from context to be intended), then the rest of
the word must inherit the part of speach that goes with the intended
meaning. {paka} "walkway" has the same derivation.
> <pa-mar> as noun-adjective, head-modifier; such as (side|board)walk
> oceanic, paseo del mar; or is verb-default just a matter of convention
> in Tokcir? Maybe it should be explicitly <pamari>, although that seems
> hyperspecific to me, since the default order in NGL is noun-adjective.
{pamari} would be the adjective describing it, plain and simple, likewise
{pamaror} would be one who walks along the ocean. You were the one who
complained that derivation wasn't specific enough...
> <Pamarkor> reads "walkway-ocean-over" to me and since derivations and
> metaphors are not sentences, it works well enough for me. It's a
Wheras in Tokcir, where they're much more grammatically deterministic of
meaning, it wouldn't...
> walkway of the type that is over the ocean, that makes walkway the
> head. <pa-ke-dis-kor-mar> would say the whole thing, "walk that is
> located over the sea", or it could be <pakedismarkor>. The <kor> does
> have to be adjacent to <mar> to establish mar as an origin, and cannot
> be just anywhere in the sentence. But to keep the derivative down to a
> size proportional to its guesstimated word-frequency, I think
> <pamarkor> is a perfectly good derivative/metaphor for pier, and I
> still propose it; seconds solicited.
{pakediskormar} to me further emphasizes the motion aspect of the verb
meaning of {pa}, it makes it *more* not less verb... (Note that in Tokcir,
vectors function more like preposition/adverbs than simple adverbs; I'd be
hesitant to apply a spacial vector to a sentence or an adjective, while I
would have no trouble using it to modify a noun phrase...)
> >BTW: Last time I checked, ' was a letter in good standing in NGL, and
> >could no more be omitted without changing meaning than any other...
> I always knew it was a letter, I'm still arguing that it's elidable in
> a derivation, a form of contraction, the kind of thing that goes on in
> spoken language all the time, and that we do get the meaning.
I'd tend to agree with you in the case of final ', but for a medial ' it
is far more a part of the morpheme to me, deterministic of its meaning,
than it is a phonological feature... Initial ' could be either, depending
on the morpheme. For {'enyo, 'aum, 'oxi} the initial ' feels like it
could be elided (in fact, one of my own common spelling errors is to do so
with {'oxi}), while for {'ek, 'ayho} it does not...
Jack Durst
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 17:03:30 -0800 (PST)
From: Gerald Koenig <j...@NETCOM.COM>
From: Gerald Koenig <j...@NETCOM.COM>
>> From: Gerald Koenig <j...@NETCOM.COM>
>> >From: Jack Durst <sp...@sierra.net>
>> >On Sun, 5 Mar 2000, Stephen DeGrace wrote:
>> >> >*kormarpa::-pier, above-ocean-walk.
>> >> Hmm. How about using a formal derivation with the head "walk", like
>> >> {pakemar}, "walk-above-ocean" or {pamarka} "ocean-walk-place". This
>> >I like Stephen's derived form better. It captures the meaning desired
>> >precisely, and without the need for any new morphemes. Though it isn't
>> >nessicary, I second {pamarka} for "pier/boardwalk".
>> Well I'm not exactly verbixgeflait with this solution. The reordering
>> of the words, putting the head "pa" first to fit the derivation rules
>> is fine with me; the problem is the shift from <kor>="above" to
>> <ka>=place. I can see <pamar> for boardwalk or ocean walk, in fact there
>> is an "Ocean Walk" here. I'd like to see, and I propose,
>Either would work just as well, and {-ka} is the more common of the two
>morphemes in both of our dialects.
>
>There is a certain reluctance to use grammar words such as vectors in
>derivations, the natural tendency is to interpret them as the start of the
>next word. It's not bad when they're the head (as with {fuci} "future"),
>but as a deriving element, I feel a competition for head status the way I
>do with a verb in that position...
Upstairs or stairsup? Well I guess it's a matter of style or
sensibility, I feel that the vector adverbs are quite free to roam
generally, and could go anywhere but the head in a derivative. The
kor/ikor.. over/under/right of.. series does have to be adjacent to an
object of reference, an Origin, immediately before or after. Perhaps I
am so used to vector it seems natural to me.
>
>"boardwalk" does need to be {pamarka}, as otherwise it's a verb, "to walk
>(along?) the ocean"
>
>> pamarkor::- pier/platform over water.
>This would be fine for the act of walking above the water (though it does
>sound biblical to me...)
Heh, me too, that's why I originally wrote it <kormarpa>.
>but it's a verb, and would need to be derived
>into a noun fo be good for Tokcir at least... {pamarkorka} would work...
>
itm pa
tp N, V
st acc JD
def step, foot, walk, emphatic not
[VTT: simple past ]
OK I can see that anyword-ka must be a noun because it is a place, but
where is it written that pa cannot be a noun if not so marked? I see
<pa-mar> as noun-adjective, head-modifier; such as (side|board)walk
oceanic, paseo del mar; or is verb-default just a matter of convention
in Tokcir? Maybe it should be explicitly <pamari>, although that seems
hyperspecific to me, since the default order in NGL is noun-adjective.
<Pamarkor> reads "walkway-ocean-over" to me and since derivations and
metaphors are not sentences, it works well enough for me. It's a
walkway of the type that is over the ocean, that makes walkway the
head. <pa-ke-dis-kor-mar> would say the whole thing, "walk that is
located over the sea", or it could be <pakedismarkor>. The <kor> does
have to be adjacent to <mar> to establish mar as an origin, and cannot
be just anywhere in the sentence. But to keep the derivative down to a
size proportional to its guesstimated word-frequency, I think
<pamarkor> is a perfectly good derivative/metaphor for pier, and I
still propose it; seconds solicited.
>BTW: Last time I checked, ' was a letter in good standing in NGL, and
>could no more be omitted without changing meaning than any other...
I always knew it was a letter, I'm still arguing that it's elidable in
a derivation, a form of contraction, the kind of thing that goes on in
spoken language all the time, and that we do get the meaning.
>
>> putting it in the writekit soon. I feel we are all drawing closer on
>> our current vision for the language. I look forward to comments from
>> Stephen and Julian, and Mia if she can get away from making kid's
>> sandwiches long enough. Carlos is preparing for his exams, so we'll
>> have to wait for him to return.
>Thanks, I look forward to any comments you may have, and to the comments
>of everyone else as well. We don't talk about our language philosophies
>nearly enough here.
I'm really enjoying this chat with you (and Stephen) and I hope others
will join in.
Jerry
>
>
>Sincerely,
> Jack Durst
>Sp...@sierra.net
>[this posting written in Net English]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planning a party? iParty.com is your complete source for party planning and
supplies, with everything you need to throw the perfect party!
http://click.egroups.com/1/1635/0/_/_/_/952478950/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Durst
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 17:55:38 -0800 (PST)
From: Gerald Koenig <j...@NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: [NGL-project] Subject: Re: [NGL] NGL text
From: Gerald Koenig <j...@NETCOM.COM>
>
>From: Jack Durst <sp...@sierra.net>
>On Tue, 7 Mar 2000, Gerald Koenig wrote:
>> Perhaps I
>> am so used to vector it seems natural to me.
>Quite possible. I'd love to see more learning materials published at the
>basic level in vectors.
I will work on it, but your feedback is invaluable because it's hard for
me to know where I'm not clear without it. For a while I am going to put
up very short posts, and I hope others will too. I'd like to translate
Tokcir and PVS posts of short length too, and get feedback.
>
>> >but it's a verb, and would need to be derived
>> >into a noun fo be good for Tokcir at least... {pamarkorka} would work...
>> itm pa
>> tp N, V
>> st acc JD
>> def step, foot, walk, emphatic not
>> [VTT: simple past ]
>>
>> OK I can see that anyword-ka must be a noun because it is a place, but
>> where is it written that pa cannot be a noun if not so marked? I see
>Nowhere, but the "special meaning" rule comes into play here, since the
>most reasonable interpretation of the morpheme is in its verb sense, (and
>moreover, the one we know from context to be intended), then the rest of
>the word must inherit the part of speach that goes with the intended
>meaning. {paka} "walkway" has the same derivation.
OK this makes it clear to me where you're coming from. To you it's
clear <pa> in <pamarkor> is a verb, and to me it's equally clear it's a
noun. Let's look at the original context of pa.... for the problem:
>Yas mi pa pas pasoem pir ku pu et tos ton fis kormarpa.
which I translated as:
>Literal: Today I past moved walkingly through the rain and outwardly,
>on-surfacely, with goal the pier.
[Note, it would have been much clearer if I had written ... fis _ku_
kormapa. It isn't required in VXT but the determiner ku declares
<kormarpa> a noun.]
I'm going to simplify it to:
Me yas paomot ton ku kormarpa. [or pamarkor]
During today I walked on-surface: the pier.
Given the omitted determiner <ku>, pier must be a noun, or at least a
verbal noun. The <kor>=(above reference object) can be viewed as an
spatial case marker that modifies its adjacent noun, here mar. I never
thought of it as such until yesterday, but perhaps it can be called
that.
If pa is to have a verbal sense here, I can see a derivative like
<paJANmarkorke>, walking-over-sea-place. But otherwise it feels
nounish to me. I am not going into this level of detail to just make an
argument, I am really trying to grasp your mind-set here. Do you see
pamarkor as such an active place that it has a verbal feel? I would have
no problem with that, I am just trying to preserve the noun sense I had
in mind when I wrote. Perhaps it is a problem inherited from english
where "walk" is a both a noun and a verb. By the way I don't want to
import a lot of english vocabulary into NGL, I'll make that clear when I
respond to your philosophy of the language post.
>> walkway of the type that is over the ocean, that makes walkway the
>> head. <pa-ke-dis-kor-mar> would say the whole thing, "walk that is
>> located over the sea", or it could be <pakedismarkor>. The <kor> does
>> have to be adjacent to <mar> to establish mar as an origin, and cannot
>> be just anywhere in the sentence. But to keep the derivative down to a
I still propose it; seconds solicited.
>{pakediskormar} to me further emphasizes the motion aspect of the verb
>meaning of {pa}, it makes it *more* not less verb...
The main verb in "walk that is located over the sea" is the stative
dis=is_located. I can see {pa} as a verbal noun here, again it would be
<paJANkediskormarka> "walking that is located over the sea place". In
vector dis, pas, ves, ses, the primary motion words, are verbs.
Adverbs, ton, nir, etc. are free or suffixes. Dis can be viewed as a
stative locative or the result of a past action of displacing an
object to a new location.
Heh, no need to worry about looking too english, this one
<pajankediskormarka> looks german or chinese. Jokes aside, I see no
problem with constructions like this _if the word frequency is low.
(Note that in Tokcir,
>vectors function more like preposition/adverbs than simple adverbs; I'd be
>hesitant to apply a spacial vector to a sentence or an adjective, while I
>would have no trouble using it to modify a noun phrase...)
Well go ahead and use them any way you want and I will give you my
feedback on it. I was quite surprised at the way Carlos used vector and
it worked out very well.
>
>> >BTW: Last time I checked, ' was a letter in good standing in NGL, and
>> >could no more be omitted without changing meaning than any other...
>> I always knew it was a letter, I'm still arguing that it's elidable in
>> a derivation, a form of contraction, the kind of thing that goes on in
>> spoken language all the time, and that we do get the meaning.
>I'd tend to agree with you in the case of final ', but for a medial ' it
>is far more a part of the morpheme to me, deterministic of its meaning,
>than it is a phonological feature... Initial ' could be either, depending
>on the morpheme. For {'enyo, 'aum, 'oxi} the initial ' feels like it
>could be elided (in fact, one of my own common spelling errors is to do so
>with {'oxi}), while for {'ek, 'ayho} it does not...
I think we need to try out these variations and see if they are
difficult or confusing. This is an infant language.
Best,
Jerry
>
>
>Sincerely,
> Jack Durst
>Sp...@sierra.net
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planning a party? iParty.com is your complete source for party planning and
supplies, with everything you need to throw the perfect party!
http://click.egroups.com/1/1635/0/_/_/_/952568310/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Durst
> >From: Jack Durst <sp...@sierra.net>
> >On Tue, 7 Mar 2000, Gerald Koenig wrote:
> >> Perhaps I
> >> am so used to vector it seems natural to me.
>
> >Quite possible. I'd love to see more learning materials published at the
> >basic level in vectors.
> I will work on it, but your feedback is invaluable because it's hard for
> me to know where I'm not clear without it. For a while I am going to put
> up very short posts, and I hope others will too. I'd like to translate
> Tokcir and PVS posts of short length too, and get feedback.
I'll be glad to, though I admit I refrained in the first place because I'm
shaky on the concept of vectors mathematically, and can't reasonably argue
them on those grounds...
I'm working on some short Tokcir materials...
> >> OK I can see that anyword-ka must be a noun because it is a place, but
> >> where is it written that pa cannot be a noun if not so marked? I see
> >Nowhere, but the "special meaning" rule comes into play here, since the
> >most reasonable interpretation of the morpheme is in its verb sense, (and
> >moreover, the one we know from context to be intended), then the rest of
> >the word must inherit the part of speach that goes with the intended
> >meaning. {paka} "walkway" has the same derivation.
> OK this makes it clear to me where you're coming from. To you it's
> clear <pa> in <pamarkor> is a verb, and to me it's equally clear it's a
Exactly. If it's used in its "walk" meaning, that clearly pegs it as a
verb for me...
> noun. Let's look at the original context of pa.... for the problem:
> >Yas mi pa pas pasoem pir ku pu et tos ton fis kormarpa.
> which I translated as:
>
> >Literal: Today I past moved walkingly through the rain and outwardly,
> >on-surfacely, with goal the pier.
> [Note, it would have been much clearer if I had written ... fis _ku_
> kormapa. It isn't required in VXT but the determiner ku declares
> <kormarpa> a noun.]
Yes, it would have, though this dosn't solve the problem for a Tokcir
speaker, Tokcir is strongly typed: one can't turn one part of speach into
another simply by use as one can in English... Where the POS in that
particular meaning is unclear, it relies on context, but in a
multiple-meaning situation there tends to be a fairly strong affiliation
between meaning and part of speach.
I may be experiencing interference from my native language and dialect,
but for me, the affiliation of the "walk/step" meaning of {pa} is fairly
strongly a verb. {pastir} means "treadmill" without having to be derived
through {-fe}.
> Given the omitted determiner <ku>, pier must be a noun, or at least a
> verbal noun. The <kor>=(above reference object) can be viewed as an
> spatial case marker that modifies its adjacent noun, here mar. I never
> thought of it as such until yesterday, but perhaps it can be called
> that.
That's certainly a thought, and it does go well with my perception of
vectors as preposition/adverbs over being simple adverbs. However, for
me, the vector association with verbs, especially that of verbs of motion
with spacial vectors (I have no doubt that {tibekorvod} would mean "to
go out over the water") makes the attachment difficult...
Would {kortibe} (on analogy to {atibe, u'těbe}) be a valid word in
Nilenga? (obviously the construction {tibe kor q X} would work...)
Perhaps we need compatibility rules to more throughly integrate vectors
into the rest of the grammar?
A temporal vector chain seems to function halfway between a PVS chain and
an adverb of time in relation to a verb; spacial vectors modify verbs of
motion, but glom onto their origins almost like prepositions do... A
puzzle grammatically, if I encountered it in a language I was studying,
I'd be tempted to postulate a new part of speach.
> If pa is to have a verbal sense here, I can see a derivative like
> <paJANmarkorke>, walking-over-sea-place. But otherwise it feels
> nounish to me. I am not going into this level of detail to just make an
> argument, I am really trying to grasp your mind-set here. Do you see
> pamarkor as such an active place that it has a verbal feel? I would have
I wouldn't see {pajanmarkorka} as valid... The jan in the middle of the
word gives me a bump, and makes me want to interpret it as if it were
written {pajan markorkai'} "the act of walking at a place over the sea"
which dosn't feel meaningfull. The {-jan} fully fixes the verbal meaning
of {pa} as {-jan} can only derive from a verb, psychologically breaks the
word into two (which is why there's a warning against putting derivers
mid-word), and is redundant besides, as the {-ka} would clear any doubt
about the part of speach anyway.
> no problem with that, I am just trying to preserve the noun sense I had
> in mind when I wrote. Perhaps it is a problem inherited from english
> where "walk" is a both a noun and a verb. By the way I don't want to
> import a lot of english vocabulary into NGL, I'll make that clear when I
> respond to your philosophy of the language post.
It may well be, though I intended the verbal sense only when I wrote the
set... I would always have written "walk/walkway" as {paka} and wouldn't
have noticed the double meaning...
For clarity purposes, I move to amend the "walk" meaning of {pa} to "walk
(V)"
> >{pakediskormar} to me further emphasizes the motion aspect of the verb
> >meaning of {pa}, it makes it *more* not less verb...
> The main verb in "walk that is located over the sea" is the stative
> dis=is_located. I can see {pa} as a verbal noun here, again it would be
> <paJANkediskormarka> "walking that is located over the sea place". In
> vector dis, pas, ves, ses, the primary motion words, are verbs.
True enough, but derivation dosn't follow the sentence rules, it follows
the simple left-to-right rule, otherwise there's be no need for seperate
words at all... {paka ke dis kor mar} is a perfectly good paraphrase for
your meaning, and is a perfectly valid noun phrase, but, it couldn't be a
derivation...
My appologies for missing the {-ke-} which is the factor which makes this
an invalid derivation. Verbs within a derivation (except when they're the
head or are the element which derives into a verb, of course) are
incapable of taking semantic roles, they alter only meaning, and so could
not be relativized or have any roles filled within the derivation.
The grammatical reason for this is that it would force incorporation of
*all* of grammar into derivation, when only one rule of grammar (go
left-to-right) will suffice. Plus, it forbids deriving whole sentences
into single words. NGL was not intended to be an incorporating language.
> Heh, no need to worry about looking too english, this one
> <pajankediskormarka> looks german or chinese. Jokes aside, I see no
> problem with constructions like this _if the word frequency is low.
I see great difficulty, as it is the *least* efficient possible means of
derivation (writing it as a paraphrase would be far easier), while at the
same time being far longer than the closest valid alternative
{pamarkorka}, not to mention the grammatical difficulties.
> > (Note that in Tokcir,
> >vectors function more like preposition/adverbs than simple adverbs; I'd be
> >hesitant to apply a spacial vector to a sentence or an adjective, while I
> >would have no trouble using it to modify a noun phrase...)
> Well go ahead and use them any way you want and I will give you my
> feedback on it. I was quite surprised at the way Carlos used vector and
> it worked out very well.
OK, I'll work on it.
> >I'd tend to agree with you in the case of final ', but for a medial ' it
> >is far more a part of the morpheme to me, deterministic of its meaning,
> >than it is a phonological feature... Initial ' could be either, depending
> >on the morpheme. For {'enyo, 'aum, 'oxi} the initial ' feels like it
> >could be elided (in fact, one of my own common spelling errors is to do so
> >with {'oxi}), while for {'ek, 'ayho} it does not...
> I think we need to try out these variations and see if they are
> difficult or confusing. This is an infant language.
The safest route would be to always incorporate, except when it is not
part of any morpheme...
Jack Durst
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 02:32:58 -0800 (PST)
From: Gerald Koenig <j...@NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: [NGL-project] Subject: Re: [NGL] NGL text
From: Gerald Koenig <j...@NETCOM.COM>
>From: Jack Durst <sp...@sierra.net>
>Reply-To: NGL-p...@onelist.com
>Subject: Re: [NGL-project] Subject: Re: [NGL] NGL text
>
>From: Jack Durst <sp...@sierra.net>
>
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Given the omitted determiner <ku>, pier must be a noun, or at least a
>> verbal noun. The <kor>=(above reference object) can be viewed as an
>> spatial case marker that modifies its adjacent noun, here mar. I never
>> thought of it as such until yesterday, but perhaps it can be called
>> that.
>That's certainly a thought, and it does go well with my perception of
>vectors as preposition/adverbs over being simple adverbs. However, for
>me, the vector association with verbs, especially that of verbs of motion
>with spacial vectors (I have no doubt that {tibekorvod} would mean "to
>go out over the water") makes the attachment difficult...
I haven't fully thought through this area in grammatical terms, as
opposed to the mathematical syntax. The space vector primitives i,j,k
are one morpheme adverbs of direction with an implicit origin (the
speaker for wokub) ie <j>=(ahead of the speaker) and have great
mobility in the sentence. Coming to the adverbs that are relative to an
external reference object, they are explicitly compound: <ju-or (jor)
X> means in front of the origin-object, X. There is a hidden metaphor
here, X has to be humanoid to have a front, ie the "front" of the bus.
It might be the explicitly compound forms that you perceive as
preposition/adverbs. But the simple forms with the implicit origins
are also hidden duals. These are plain adverbs in english, such as "up"
or "down". "Above" or "below" seem to be the compounds.
itm tibe
tp V
st acc JD
def come, go, move
nt tibe + ACC = go to N-acc; tibe + DAT = move N-dat
<X tibekorvod> could mean X comes/goes/moves over water.
To get the additional sense of "go _out_ over" would require another
adverb, probably <liv> which has an ablative sense:
<X tibelivkorvod> X moves away [from something] over the water.
Exactly what is being moved out from is not stated, presumably the
shore. I'm not quite sure how to handle missing objects of reference.
<X pasliv kor [q] vod> or <X pasliv vodkor> is the way I would say it
in Nilenga. The adjacency of kor to vod binds the pair, liv is left
unbound to any noun, it has to seek some contextual object to bind to.
>
>Would {kortibe} (on analogy to {atibe, u'těbe}) be a valid word in
>Nilenga? (obviously the construction {tibe kor q X} would work...)
>Perhaps we need compatibility rules to more throughly integrate vectors
>into the rest of the grammar?
I think that {kortibe} works so long as the object of reference, the
origin, pointed to by the "-or" component of <kor> is obvious from
context. Every "or" is only one member of a pair. So I would say that
<Y-or> can prefix, suffix, infix, or float so long as its referential
noun can be identified. <Or> and <reference object> are like pronoun
and noun.
>
>A temporal vector chain seems to function halfway between a PVS chain and
>an adverb of time in relation to a verb;
The temporal vector words (pa, fu, em, manymore) do act like
auxiliaries in that they usually front the verb. The verb is not
inflected, so they can also follow the verb as inflections or even
free, but TVS is specialized for suffixes and works fine where the
specificity of VTT is not wanted. The difference between VTT and
english or PVS is that the starting point for the particles is in every
case a vector diagram, and all possible diagrams (that one can hold in
mind) are considered. Essentially VTT has no blind tenses.
>spacial vectors modify verbs of
>motion, but glom onto their origins almost like prepositions do... A
>puzzle grammatically, if I encountered it in a language I was studying,
>I'd be tempted to postulate a new part of speach.
The spatial vector grammar is derived from the basic vector equations
of state and motion in space. These equations are themselves
translations of ordinary language into mathematical symbolism; I have
translated the math back to language. The round trip has perhaps
produced something unusual but so far it seems to work well. Something
of the compactness, precision and functionality of the math has come
across. I am trying to clarify it for others even as I explore it
myself. Both space and time grammars make extensive use of contractions
that tie into the modal systems and pronouns.
>> no problem with that, I am just trying to preserve the noun sense I had
>> in mind when I wrote. Perhaps it is a problem inherited from english
>> where "walk" is a both a noun and a verb. By the way I don't want to
>> import a lot of english vocabulary into NGL, I'll make that clear when I
>> respond to your philosophy of the language post.
>It may well be, though I intended the verbal sense only when I wrote the
>set... I would always have written "walk/walkway" as {paka} and wouldn't
>have noticed the double meaning...
>
>For clarity purposes, I move to amend the "walk" meaning of {pa} to "walk
>(V)"
Well I think this is the root of the problem, that you as author saw
the word as a pure verb, and always thought of it that way. Even though
it is a public word now and has a noun sense, I really think that you
should have proprietary rights as a matter of respect for your
authorship, and I think we should be unanimous in approving the
change. Anyway I second it.
xxx Verbs within a derivation (except when they're the
>head or are the element which derives into a verb, of course) are
>incapable of taking semantic roles, they alter only meaning, and so could
>not be relativized or have any roles filled within the derivation.
So we can say that only verb stems or infinitives are allowed in
derivations?
>
>> Heh, no need to worry about looking too english, this one
>> <pajankediskormarka> looks german or chinese. Jokes aside, I see no
>> problem with constructions like this _if the word frequency is low.
>I see great difficulty, as it is the *least* efficient possible means of
>derivation (writing it as a paraphrase would be far easier), while at the
>same time being far longer than the closest valid alternative
>{pamarkorka}, not to mention the grammatical difficulties.
Ok then, can we say that
pamarkorka::- N. a pier or insular platform over water.
From walk-V, sea, above,
place. [I want to include oil rigs with this]
I propose it, or if you did I second it.
Whether kor binds to mar or ka it makes sense.
ezo tixi,
Jerry
------------------------------------------------------------------------
What's the coolest new Web resource? It's the AskMe Page, which allows you
to have your own Q&A platform, interact with peers and earn rewards! It's
simple, fun & FREE! Get it now! Click here:
http://click.egroups.com/1/2149/0/_/_/_/952684380/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Durst
> From: Gerald Koenig <j...@NETCOM.COM>
> >From: Jack Durst <sp...@sierra.net>
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Given the omitted determiner <ku>, pier must be a noun, or at least a
> >> verbal noun. The <kor>=(above reference object) can be viewed as an
> >> spatial case marker that modifies its adjacent noun, here mar. I never
> >> thought of it as such until yesterday, but perhaps it can be called
> >> that.
> >That's certainly a thought, and it does go well with my perception of
> >vectors as preposition/adverbs over being simple adverbs. However, for
> >me, the vector association with verbs, especially that of verbs of motion
> >with spacial vectors (I have no doubt that {tibekorvod} would mean "to
> >go out over the water") makes the attachment difficult...
> I haven't fully thought through this area in grammatical terms, as
> opposed to the mathematical syntax. The space vector primitives i,j,k
This does need to be done, since the mathematical syntax introduces a
grammar of its own inherited from other languages, which sometimes is and
sometimes isn't compatible with the accepted grammar of the rest of the
language.
> are one morpheme adverbs of direction with an implicit origin (the
> speaker for wokub) ie <j>=(ahead of the speaker) and have great
> mobility in the sentence. Coming to the adverbs that are relative to an
> external reference object, they are explicitly compound: <ju-or (jor)
> X> means in front of the origin-object, X. There is a hidden metaphor
> here, X has to be humanoid to have a front, ie the "front" of the bus.
Understood. The plain morphemes themselves would actually come closer to
simple adverbs or adjectives. Is there an explicit adjectival form for
plain vectors, or do they describe without derivation?
> It might be the explicitly compound forms that you perceive as
> preposition/adverbs. But the simple forms with the implicit origins
> are also hidden duals. These are plain adverbs in english, such as "up"
> or "down". "Above" or "below" seem to be the compounds.
I agree with you that the referentiality of the compound forms is what I'm
seeing a prepositional character in, though I'd disagree with your
classification of the English words. They can belong to multiple parts of
speach in English, some act in compounds as prepositions, some act as
plain adverbs, and some as adjectives...
> <X tibekorvod> could mean X comes/goes/moves over water.
Which is what I intended...
> To get the additional sense of "go _out_ over" would require another
> adverb, probably <liv> which has an ablative sense:
> <X tibelivkorvod> X moves away [from something] over the water.
Hmmn... interesting note on a English dialect difference between us, there
wouldn't nessicarily be an allative sense to the phrase in my dialect,
though it is possible...
> <X pasliv kor [q] vod> or <X pasliv vodkor> is the way I would say it
> in Nilenga. The adjacency of kor to vod binds the pair, liv is left
> unbound to any noun, it has to seek some contextual object to bind to.
Understood.
I'd like to see a more grammatical binding rule than context, though, I
can immagine some unclear sentences in that case...
> >Would {kortibe} (on analogy to {atibe, u'těbe}) be a valid word in
> >Nilenga? (obviously the construction {tibe kor q X} would work...)
> >Perhaps we need compatibility rules to more throughly integrate vectors
> >into the rest of the grammar?
> I think that {kortibe} works so long as the object of reference, the
> origin, pointed to by the "-or" component of <kor> is obvious from
> context. Every "or" is only one member of a pair. So I would say that
> <Y-or> can prefix, suffix, infix, or float so long as its referential
> noun can be identified. <Or> and <reference object> are like pronoun
> and noun.
OK, that makes sense. I'd like to see a little less freedom in phrasing
and attachment, though, as it leaves open the possibility of finding a
vector *anywhere*. It'd be easier to parse the free-form language if they
had a fixed position on or relative to a word.
> >A temporal vector chain seems to function halfway between a PVS chain and
> >an adverb of time in relation to a verb;
> The temporal vector words (pa, fu, em, manymore) do act like
> auxiliaries in that they usually front the verb. The verb is not
> inflected, so they can also follow the verb as inflections or even
> free, but TVS is specialized for suffixes and works fine where the
> specificity of VTT is not wanted. The difference between VTT and
> english or PVS is that the starting point for the particles is in every
> case a vector diagram, and all possible diagrams (that one can hold in
> mind) are considered. Essentially VTT has no blind tenses.
I can see how this will work well for explicit description of tenses,
especially in concert with other systems. Grammatically, however, one can
treat them either as auxiliary chains or as sentence-modifying adverbs.
I think I have a possible proposal for integrating vectors more throughly
into the standard language that I'll need your help on... See my other
post.
> of the compactness, precision and functionality of the math has come
> across. I am trying to clarify it for others even as I explore it
> myself. Both space and time grammars make extensive use of contractions
> that tie into the modal systems and pronouns.
Which is understood, though I do have concerns over their modularity. Is
it permissible to mix systems? {fu yasom} instead of {mi fu yas}, etc.?
> >> no problem with that, I am just trying to preserve the noun sense I had
> >> in mind when I wrote. Perhaps it is a problem inherited from english
> >> where "walk" is a both a noun and a verb. By the way I don't want to
> >> import a lot of english vocabulary into NGL, I'll make that clear when I
> >> respond to your philosophy of the language post.
> >It may well be, though I intended the verbal sense only when I wrote the
> >set... I would always have written "walk/walkway" as {paka} and wouldn't
> >have noticed the double meaning...
> >
> >For clarity purposes, I move to amend the "walk" meaning of {pa} to "walk
> >(V)"
> Well I think this is the root of the problem, that you as author saw
> the word as a pure verb, and always thought of it that way. Even though
> it is a public word now and has a noun sense, I really think that you
> should have proprietary rights as a matter of respect for your
> authorship, and I think we should be unanimous in approving the
> change. Anyway I second it.
OK, thanks.
> > xxx Verbs within a derivation (except when they're the
> >head or are the element which derives into a verb, of course) are
> >incapable of taking semantic roles, they alter only meaning, and so could
> >not be relativized or have any roles filled within the derivation.
> So we can say that only verb stems or infinitives are allowed in
> derivations?
Well, technically, the stem of a verb when used alone (in the absence of
an inflection or an auxiliary chain) is a generic for compatibility
purposes which implies nothing about finiteness.
In a derivation, however, the bare stem would *act* as if it were the
appropriate non-finite form.
> >I see great difficulty, as it is the *least* efficient possible means of
> >derivation (writing it as a paraphrase would be far easier), while at the
> >same time being far longer than the closest valid alternative
> >{pamarkorka}, not to mention the grammatical difficulties.
> Ok then, can we say that
>
> pamarkorka::- N. a pier or insular platform over water.
> From walk-V, sea, above,
> place. [I want to include oil rigs with this]
>
> I propose it, or if you did I second it.
OK, I proposed it initially, so it's official in the basic sense. I
second the oil rig sense.