View this page "verb inflections"

[vict...@gmail.com]

just something i did in class while bored

Click on http://groups.google.com/group/tg-developers/web/verb-inflections
- or copy & paste it into your browser's address bar if that doesn't
work.

[vkkim]

[lodos...@gmail.com]

I think it's better to add a word or two to indicate the tense of the
sentence. 1, 2, 3 is quite weird.
eg.
Present - 現
Past - 了 (Chinese, indicates past tense. I pick this because the
character doesn't carry other meanings. words like 前 could mean
directions, so confusing)
Future - 会

I think it makes more sense to put "politeness" in front of verbs.
Moreover, these words might make more sense and simply more directly
carry the message.
Formal - 尊
Polite - 敬
Neutral - nothing
The point of TG is to simplify things. Why make things informal when
we don't have to?
I'd take away "informal" speech.

so for example,
[formal] [to go] [past] - 尊行了

[Victor Kim]

that's fine, but isn't 會 part of a lot of words too?  1, 2, 3 are weird, but that's why it's a new language.  i like the other two though, let's talk about it later.

i actually really like the characters for formal/polite you chose, it would make more sense for koreans too since we use those characters for formal level speech anyway

yes, the point of tg is to simplify, but it's also to accurately represent different ideas.  especially since we are drawing upon confucian societies, we need to be able to express ourselves with different levels.  this isn't just going to be for talking to each other, but for translating other stuff too.  one of the things that pisses me off is when watching anime or korean dramas the english subtitles lose a lot of the subtleties involved with speech patterns and inflections.  this would keep tg as close to the source languages as possible.

let's at least keep working with the informal tense for now.  i cut out so many tenses already it's not even funny.  look at this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_honorifics if you want to see a lot.  japanese and modern chinese are too simplified (tense-wise) for everyday use.  we still use most of those.  i mean i count 14 on that page.

i'm not sure if i want it in front or not.  it makes it harder to recognize verbs verbally - i.e., by sound.  the root of the verb would be buried in the middle of the word and it might be harder to make out what you're saying.  interesting suggestion though, definitely keep it in mind.

good ideas overall, i like this kind of thinking.  we need more of it.

[Victor Kim]

On 10/6/07, Victor Kim <vck...@lehigh.edu> wrote:

oh and another reason i chose 1, 2, 3 is because it's easy to write, and it gives verbs an interesting look, kind of like extending katagana vowels (e.g., ケーキ).  it's like adding the verb inflections as surreptitiously as possible, since chinese doesn't have them.

On 10/6/07, Victor Kim < vck...@lehigh.edu> wrote:

that's fine, but isn't 會 part of a lot of words too?  1, 2, 3 are weird, but that's why it's a new language.  i like the other two though, let's talk about it later.

i actually really like the characters for formal/polite you chose, it would make more sense for koreans too since we use those characters for formal level speech anyway

yes, the point of tg is to simplify, but it's also to accurately represent different ideas.  especially since we are drawing upon confucian societies, we need to be able to express ourselves with different levels.  this isn't just going to be for talking to each other, but for translating other stuff too.  one of the things that pisses me off is when watching anime or korean dramas the english subtitles lose a lot of the subtleties involved with speech patterns and inflections.  this would keep tg as close to the source languages as possible.

let's at least keep working with the informal tense for now.  i cut out so many tenses already it's not even funny.  look at this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_honorifics if you want to see a lot.  japanese and modern chinese are too simplified (tense-wise) for everyday use.  we still use most of those.  i mean i count 14 on that page.

i'm not sure if i want it in front or not.  it makes it harder to recognize verbs verbally - i.e., by sound.  the root of the verb would be buried in the middle of the word and it might be harder to make out what you're saying.  interesting suggestion though, definitely keep it in mind.

good ideas overall, i like this kind of thinking.  we need more of it.

On 10/5/07, lodos...@gmail.com < lodos...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Victor Kim]

On 10/6/07, Victor Kim <vck...@lehigh.edu> wrote:

oh but what did you guys think about my hanja choices for particles?