Forum:Group Project/Organization

Start-General-Vocabulary-Organization-Innovations

I propose we create a proper project page, so that we can keep track of the progress. This page is getting overloaded and we have just started the language. I will create a regular page for it, so we can get started. Main discussion continues here, however. Panglossa | Talk 01:35, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

I would like to have done that sooner, but I wasn't sure what to name it o_0 Razlem 01:45, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

Done, I named it the same as the Forum page, only without the "Forum:" prefix:


 * Group Project

Later on we can change it, maybe when we decide a name for the language. I guess we should decide that only after the phonology is established. Panglossa | Talk 01:51, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

Dictionary
Since this language will revolve around changing the last medial vowel, we should create a dictionary of roots in the example format: "gel-l", where "-" is the identifying vowel. Razlem 17:50, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

Better not. Say we have our word gelol/gelyl meaning "soup," then what does gelal mean? You can't tell it means "to drink soup." —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 21:52, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

I can tell that gelyl means "soup", gelal means "to soup" (which one would understand to be 'to make something into soup' or 'soupify'), and gelil means "soupy". As in Esperanto, teatro means theatre, teatra means theatrical, teatre means theatrically, teatras means "to theatre" (which one would understand as 'to make like a theatre' or 'theaterize'). Yet the only form in the Esperanto dictionary is "teatr". It would be inefficient to include every possible form in the dictionary. Razlem 02:41, June 14, 2010 (UTC)

You would have an Esperanto dictionary. Lol why not just include the verb form. The verb form is always weird in relation to the noun. Like kanti and kanto. Kanti, means "to sing" and what do you sing? You sing a song. Paroli and parolo? What do you say? You say a parolo. But what do you vidi? You don't vidi a vido. Hence the esperanta system doesn't work, 'specially for non-Europeans. We should clarify that gelyl should come from the root "gelal" meaning "to drink soup." To soupify could be gelylat or some other suffix. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 15:57, June 14, 2010 (UTC)

Assuming "vidi" means "to see", you can in fact see a sight. It is rare that one can use all forms of the root. Esperanto has the root "leg" meaning "read". "Legi" means to read, but "lego, lega, and lege" are not used. Since you can't "soup" something in any language, it would be illogical to use the verb form "gelal". Instead use the example root "baan-ng"-drink- "baanang gelyl". Razlem 17:31, June 14, 2010 (UTC)

Here's your Anglocentricity again. Who says you can't soup something in any language? Sure, it's not any language I know, but still… Why not base "gelyl" off a verb? Instead of basing everything off the noun "gelyl," which yields nothing for "gelal," why not have a verb "gelal," "to drink soup" that yields gelyl: soup, gelil: drinking soup, gelylil: relating to soup, gelel: while drinking soup, etc. And from baan-ng we could have baanong meaning "a drink, something to drink." We could do that for every food. "Maa" could mean "to eat rice" and thus we have "moo": rice, etc. Because naturally, you can take a noun coming from a verb to mean "something you can VERB" but a noun to a verb is so much more irregular, it's best to start from a noun. An English speaker might interpret Esperanta "suki" to mean "to make into juice" but another might interpret it as "to drink juice." With my system, going off verbs, there is a lot more regularity. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 19:04, June 14, 2010 (UTC)

It's hardly Anglocentric. I'm suggesting that each word be based on an empty root "gel-l", which approximately translates to "having to do with some soup-like substance", but has no meaning until a vowel is added. The root itself does not mean the noun "soup." Your suffix for gelyl "gelylil" conflicts with the medial vowel identification. If "maa" is "eat rice", then how would one say "grow rice" or "cook rice" or "use rice"? Would there be different words, and more derivatives, for each? Razlem 20:14, June 14, 2010 (UTC)

No. That's not what I'm saying. If we use your approach, then it would be crazy for stuff that actually is a verb. You are making too thick a line betwen nouns and verbs. Say we have the verb "kigpaan" meaning "to swim." Then what would you write in the dictionary? Like I said, we should write everything in terms of verbs. Say "maa" means "eat rice." That automatically implies that "moo" means rice. To grow rice might be "Simja moo" with "simja" meaning "to grow" and then cook rice would be "ala moo." If we base our language on verbs, we can practically double our vocabulary. I mean sure if we want to incorporate the verb "konlaang" meaning "to conlang" we already have the noun "konlyyng" meaning "a conlang." But if we insert the dictionary word "konl--ng" meaning "relating to conlangs" then where do we get the nouns?

Here, lemme retierate my system. Take any verb, say nguupar meaning "to search for." The root is nguup-r. Now then "nguupyr" must then be "something artificial that you search for." Then "nguupor" is "something natural you search for." Nguupir is "searching for something" as an adjective. To get "a search for something" you make the word nguuparo. There is no ambiguity.

But with your system we have this. Nguup-r meaning "something to do with a search." Nguupor means "a search for something." Nguupar, nguupir, nguuper, are all like wha? Chinese people will die right here I tell you. There's absolutely no way to tell that "nguupar" means "to search." A Chinese person who didn't speak English might say "you mean like making something into a search?"

Screw the Esperanto system. We're trying to be more derivational here. And our system is much different anyway. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 20:50, June 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * Your system is very strange. There's no way to tell that "maa" means "eat rice", and does that mean that the verb "to eat" does not exist? Would you "maa moo" or just "maa"? Also, you misinterpreted my system, which is "having", not "something" which indicates a noun.

If Nguup-r means "having to do with a search", then logically,

Noun + having to do with a search = a search

Verb + having to do with a search = to make something like a search (yes, this is in fact what it means) or simply, to search

Adjective + having to do with a search = having to do with a search or like a search

Adverb + having to do with a search = (to do something) like a search

Razlem 23:50, June 14, 2010 (UTC)

It's not strange. The reason we know "maa" means "to eat rice" is because that's the definition! Hence "moo" follows as so:

to eat rice + noun = something you eat (rice) = rice

to eat rice + verb = to eat rice

to eat rice + adjective = to eat rice + verb + adjective = eating rice

to eat rice + adverb = eating rice

to eat rice + noun + adjective = relating to rice

to eat rice + (act of) + adjective = relating to the consumption of rice

Notice how we get a lot more out of one root and notice how it's a lot more specific and unambiguous.

to search + noun = something you search for

to search + verb = to search

to search + adjective = to search + verb + adjective = searching

to search + adverb = searchingly

to search + (act of) = a search

I want you to read this essay, which shows the reason I choose it to be this way. Note how it mentions why roots should be based on verbs rather than nouns. http://www.eskimo.com/~ram/vocabulary_design.html —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 01:31, June 15, 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that is correct. Your adverb form is actually an adverbial clause, which itself is closer to a prepositional phrase than an actual adverb. "He ran (while) eating rice". "Eating rice" does not describe in what manner he "ran" the way "quickly" would. Also, "to eat rice + noun" to me means "the action of eating rice", and not "rice" itself.

If maa means to eat rice, then simjumaa means to grow rice, alumaa means to cook rice, and each would have a complete set of derivatives (and would "kompjutar" mean to eat computers?) This is a great idea if you want an elaborate natlang, but for an auxlang, a smaller vocabulary is better. It would be much more efficient just to have a separate verb for eat "jad" and not use the verb form of "moo".

And what about simple adjectives such as "green" or nouns such as "house". You can build a house, but you can also build a building or a shed or a machine. To have separate verbs for each of those is very inefficient for an auxlang.

So instead of:

maa

derivative

derivative

derivative

...

simjumaa

derivative

...

alumaa

...

Just have:

jad moo

simja moo

ala moo

Razlem 03:11, June 15, 2010 (UTC)

Look. First of all, my use of adverbs is correct, as it parallels the usage in Chinese. Why not increase flexbility by following their method rather than limiting ourselves with Eurocentricity.

Computer would come from the verb "komputaar" meaning "to use a computer," thus making komputyyr a computer. (on a side note, look how convenient the adverb komputeer becomes. I typed that up komputeer. I komputeer sent you an e-mail.)

House would come from the verb "epaal" meaning "to live" thus making epyyl somewhere you live.

Green comes from the verb "fajhaat" meaning "to be green," and since it is intransitive, "fajhoot" would be "something green." To get the word for "green" you would have to say "falhiit noos," green colour. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 13:37, June 15, 2010 (UTC)

Derivation (Continued)
What your system gains in flexibility, it loses in regularity, which is the core of any auxlang.

All of this can be said just as easily with the other system.

fajh--t (means nothing, but the derivations will pertain to green)

fajhaat (the meaning is based on context, can either be "to make green" or "to be green")

fajhyyt (something artificial that is green)

fajhoot (something natural that is green)

fajheet ('to do something' in a green manner)

fajhiit (like green, or simply, green)

In addition, there are the example roots "l-" "be", and "t-" "make", so you have the option of saying "ta fajhiit" or "la fajhiit" to decrease ambiguity.

In total I have 3 roots, fajh--t, l-, t-, and about 15 derivations. Compare that to your system, which would require a separate word for "make green" and "be green", as well as the words for "be" and "make"- 4 roots total, about 20 derivations, and possibly 8 semantic repeats (art noun, nat noun, adv, and adj).

We can't have a Sinocentric system, and this is not Eurocentric. The Chinese derivation system is highly idiosyncratic, plus you wind up with many forms of the same word. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it does not fit with an auxlang.

Razlem 15:08, June 15, 2010 (UTC)

How can I get this across to you. It's not idiosyncratic, and it's not Sinocentric. What you're giving me is an arbitrary system. Completely arbitrary, do you realize that? This is because you are trying to distinguish parts of speech. You are acting like fajhiit, green, is the main form of the word, and as well you are not including that in the dictionary. In my system, we could have the verb jan, meanin "to cause." Thus you could say jan fajhaat (in infinitive form lol which we haven't decided), and furthermore you could say jan komputaar or jan maa.

Just look past the end of your nose, your country, your culture, your language, etc. Some Europeans may find your derivational system logical but in reality there's nothing logical about it. You expect there to magically arise a verb. "To be green" is TOTALLY ARBITRARY believe it or not, and it would confuse easterners beyond comprehension. Same with "TO SEARCH" "TO MAKE INTO RICE," ETC. I have no idea about your agruments. They're absolute nonsense. Just reread my system already and stop being so Anglocentric/arbitrary. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 15:33, June 15, 2010 (UTC)

You're correct, it is arbitrary. But your system is no less. Say you have the word "tal" meaning "to grow (plant) a seed" with "tol" meaning seed. Many seeds can also be eaten, but you can't use "tal" for "eat seeds", you'd have to use "jad tol". But for some reason, you can't "jad moo", you just "maa". You can't use "maa" for "grow rice", you'd have to use "simja moo". Now you have two words "simja, tal" which both mean "to grow" something. Now say you have "kyja" to cook dinner, with "kyjy" meaning dinner. To eat dinner, you can't kyja. If you create another verb for "to eat dinner"- "kuula", you'd wind up with two forms of the exact same word "dinner" (kuuly, kyjy). Not to mention people in India would go nuts if "tor" (cow/beef) came from "tar" (to eat cow/beef) lol.

The main meaning would be in the dictionary in this format:

al-: cook

fajh--t: green

gel-l: soup

m--: rice

j-d: eat

kyj-: dinner

l-: be

t-: make

t-r: cow

None of these roots mean anything by their empty selves, and it's going to be impossible to use every single medial vowel (what does "tur" or "alu" mean, if "u" is miscellaneous?)

It seems like it's impossible to make this easy for Easterners (who, from what I'm gathering, don't use parts of speech, at least not in the same manner as Europeans?). In that case, neither of our systems would work. And I know for a fact that the Arabic and Hindi speaking population (totalling about 650 million) would have trouble with these systems as well. To be regular would be inefficient, to be efficient would be irregular. Hooray for snags... Perhaps we should conduct a poll to see which system people would have the least trouble with, here on Conlangs. It's not going to decide anything, and it will most likely be biased towards an Esperanta system, but just for shits and giggles :P

By the way, where the hell is Panglossa? Is he not interested in the project anymore? I miss his input :(

Razlem 20:03, June 15, 2010 (UTC)

This is the third time I have to type this dang thing up because of technical difficulties so bear with me. My system is neither arbitrary, irregular, or inefficient. I'll show you with a dictionary. But first I'll just clarify that yes "jad moo" is perfectly grammatical, but "maa" is much more efficient.

ala: to cook fajhaat: to be green gelal: to drink soup maa: to eat rice jad: to eat kyja: to eat dinner tar: to see a cow

In common practice it would be shortened to:

al-: cook fajh--t: be green gel-l: drink soup m--: eat rice j-d: eat kyj-: eat dinner t-r: see cow

Notice how unlike in your dictionary, my dictionary tells you everything you need with the definition, including all forms. With yours, the verb form is usually arbitrary. But I bet you my system works all the time unquestionably, and unarbitrarily. For example, we already have the nouns:

alo: something you cook (cooked food or food that can be cooked) fajhoot: something green gel-l: soup m--: rice j-d: something you eat kyj-: dinner t-r: cow

And that's with no ambiguity, I guarantee you. Give me one verb where my system doesn't work and I'll reconsider. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 22:10, June 15, 2010 (UTC)

The decision to make "maa" "eat rice" is totally arbitrary. Rice is grown more than eaten, so shouldn't the default definition be "grow rice" instead? Cows are most certainly eaten more than seen, and dinner is cooked before eaten.

This is my main issue: why do you have a word mean "eat X" when a word for "eat" already exists? Same with "grow", "see", or "be".

Here's your irregularity:

Since "fajhoot" means "something that is green", that requires "tor" to be "something that sees cows" rather than "cow", and "jod" to be "something that eats" rather than "something to be eaten."

To fix this, "tar" would have to be "be a cow", and "jad"- "to be eaten". All verbs would have to "be."

Razlem 01:29, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

1) well, I'm just suggesting what would be more practical. In the case with rice, a Chinese parent would tell their child "maa" in the imperative form several times daily. That's my idea for foods. For animals, seeing is the best keeping in mind the needs of hunters. "To be a cow" would be unnecessary because if this is a pro-drop language, you wouldn't even need to change it to a verb. Sure it's arbitrary when making the language, but it makes a lot more sense than "tar" meaning "to make into a cow" lol. And besides, a language learner would hardly find the system arbitrary if they just memorize the verbs as they appear in the dictionary. And on eating cows, I would use "bistor" for beef, and the tricky part is "bistar" is "to eat beef." Bis- would be a prefix making something into meat.

2) It's not an irregularity. I use the subject for intransitive verbs. I like ergativity… —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 01:44, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

That would be defending an irregularity- "just memorize it"

Your system can not work regularly. Even if every word was "to be X", how would you say "cook", or "grow" or "eat"?

Again, since fajhoot means "something that is green", then moo must mean "something that is rice", and not "something that eats rice," as your current system implies.

In my system, "tar" would simply not be used. You would use "la tor" for "be a cow."

Razlem 02:15, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

"just memorize it" is not defending irregularity. It's no harder to memorize "to eat rice" as a definition of "maa" than to memorize "moo" as "rice." With my system, there is no irregularity outside the dictionary. If you have a dictionary and a short guide to Terran grammar, you can speak Terran. But with your system, you basically have to memorize all the forms of a word due to arbitrarity.

Once again, you are drawing lines between parts of speech. At that point, there's no regularity.

Yes. Moo does mean "something that is rice." "Something that eats rice" would be mii ho, eating-rice something. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 14:49, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

So maa must mean "be rice" if moo is "something that be (is) rice"Razlem 17:20, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

No… You don't derive the verb from the noun, you derive the noun from the verb… how many times do I have to repeat myself?

Transitive verb (xax):

xox-something you xax

xyx-something artificial you xax

xix-xaxing

xex-xaxingly

intransitive verb (xaax):

xoox-something that xaaxes

xyyx-something artificial that xaxes

xiix-xaxing

xex-xaxingly —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 17:41, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

Fajhoot must be "something you are green" rather than "something that is green" then, since the verb "to be" in that case is transitive.

Your system (if it were regular):

XXXa - "to verb X" (also the dictionary form)

XXXo - "noun that verbs X"

XXXe- "(to do something) (while) verbing X"

YYYa- "to be Y"

YYYo- "something that is Y"

YYYe- "(to do something) (while) being Y"

ZZZa - "to eat Z"

ZZZo- "something that eats Z"

ZZZe- "(to do something) (while) eating Z"

AAAa- "to see A"

AAAo- "something that sees A"

AAAe- "(to do something) (while) seeing A"

Do you see? If maa is "eat rice", then moo is logically "something that eats rice". If you want moo to be "something that is rice", then you must make maa "be rice".

My system:

Dictionary Form: "XXX-: X"

XXXa- "to X" (transitive or intransitive)

XXXo- "noun that is X"

XXXe- "(to verb)in an X manner"

YYYa- "to green" (available, but isn't used unless you actually can "green" something)

YYYo- "something that is green"

YYYe- "(to do something) in a green manner"

ZZZa- "to eat" (You can use this verb to say "I eat." or "I eat food."

ZZZo- "something that is eat" (available, but isn't used unless something can be an "eat"; not something "that is eaten")

ZZZe- "(to do something) in an eat manner" (available, but isn't used unless you can do something "eatly")

AAAa- "to bread" (can be used, since you can "bread" things in Russian, Arabic, English, Spanish, and Swahili)

AAAo "something that is bread" (not something "that is breaded")

AAAe- "(to do something) in a bread manner" (available, but isn't used unless you can do something "breadly")

Razlem 18:23, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

Why the phở do you change my system? Not only do you obviously not understand my system, but you edit my system and then tell me it's irregular. This is why I'm so dang angry. And did you even read my essay?

XXXa - "to verb" (also the dictionary form)

XXXo - "something which is verbed"

XXXe- "(to do something) (while) verbing anything"

The copula would be a "joining verb" which we will discuss later. I don't want to bring those into the system. Other verbs like that are "to marry," "to meet," "to be like," etc.

ZZZa - "to eat Z"

ZZZo- "Z"

ZZZe- "(to do something) (while) eating Z" —Detectivekenny; (Info ) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 18:43, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

"To be green" is not transitive. You can't be-green something. It's technically equivalent to Mandarin verbs, where you use "green" as a verb in the sentence wo lu se de (I green). —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 18:49, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

In "X is green", "is" is transitive copulative.

Did you read the little part that said "if it were regular"? It was in italics. I know your system is not that way. Razlem 18:54, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

……………………………………………………Several things wrong.

1) "is" in that sense is not copulative. It's just a helping verb Europeans for some reason have to have.

2) "is" is transitive yes. But I mean the whole dang phrase "be green" is not transitive. Get out of your stupid Anglobubble already.

3) What do you mean "if it were regular"? You just changed EVERY DANG VERB to make it regular in another way, but that way is NOT MY WAY.

4) With your stupid American Mensa membership, you're still not right. It was perfectly regular, JUST A BIT ERGATIVE. If you don't know what that means, which I have a feeling you don't, look it up on Wikipedia, because there's your definition.

5) Can you read logic?

subjoct varb(trans) objoct: vorb=dysjunction of all possible values of objoct

subjoct varb(intrans): vorb=dysjunction of all possible values of subjoct —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 19:32, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

For the sake of argument, let's say you're right.

Remind me again why my system can't work?

Insults are unnecessary, please control your anger. Razlem 20:18, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you can clear this up for me, I'm confused:

You said, "House would come from the verb "epaal" meaning "to live" thus making epyyl somewhere you live."

"intransitive verb (xaax):

xoox-something that xaaxes

xyyx-something artificial that xaxes

xiix-xaxing

xex-xaxingly"

Epaal is intransitive, so shouldn't epyyl mean "something that lives" instead of "somewhere you live". And is there a distinction between "something" and "somewhere"? And what does that make "room", "shelter", or "survival"?

So 2 things,

1) Why my system can't work

2) Clarification of "epaal"

Thanks,

Razlem 21:49, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

My lame excuses for being angry lol:

1) Chinese horoscope, but if you were born in 1992, 1996 you would have similar

2) I'm super bad at explaining stuff

3) overall tendency to get angry

4) one tends to lose sense of respect in general on the internet

Sorry…

Your system wouldn't work because

1) it's arbitrary. In general, it would mean extra memorization (outside dictionary) by people not used to derivation as well as people used to derivation of other forms.

2) the definitions are unclear in the dictionary

Epaal:

Somewhere you live (Say epaal means "to live at," so technically "something you live at") is a home. It's not specific. It could be a country (homeland), house, shelter, etc. "House" can come from whatever root fojaang meaning "to enter a house" or something else, which I could ponder some other time. <small style="color:#7F7F6F">—Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 03:49, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

Your system seems to assume that the verbs are the same in every language. In Spanish, for example, you can't "be embarrassed", you "have embarrassment" (tiene vergüenza). Russians don't "have" anything at all! They use the preposition "У" (At), and the dative to make something like "At me car" (У меня автомобиль- I have a car). Russian and Arabic rarely use the verb "to be" in the present tense. While your system is relatively easy for English speakers, it would be very difficult to grasp for these speakers.

With my system, we have the flexibility of choosing "have" or "be", since these verbs are not connected by root to "embarrass." If a Spanish speaker is uncomfortable saying "be embarrassed", they could say "have embarrassment" instead. On the other hand, a Russian who is uncomfortable saying "have embarrassment" can say "be embarrassed" instead. This is not possible with your system due to the distinction between transitive and intransitive verbs.

In defense of my system:

1) Every derivation system will require some knowledge and practice of derivation. For both of our systems, people will have to learn to get "moo" from either "m--" or "maa". This will be unavoidable no matter which system we choose.

Forgive me again, but I need another example; what exactly would a Chinese speaker have trouble saying if he/she used my system?

2) Since translations aren't always equal, the definition would be translated as accurately as possible.

Here's a full example of an envisioned dictionary entry (in English, Spanish, and my awful translation to Chinese :P). Comments in parentheses:

l_: be, ser/estar, 是 (not an infinitive, but this is how it would be translated)
 * la- to be, ser/estar, 要 (and this assuming that the "a" form is infinitive)
 * lo- (a) being (natural), (un) ser (natural), 存在 (自然)
 * ly- (a) being (artificial), (un) ser (artificial), 存在 (人工)
 * li- (available)*, (disponible), (可用的) (something can't be "be-like")
 * le- (available), (disponible), (可用的) (one can't do something "be-ly")
 * lu- because (conjunction), porque (conjunción), 因 (连词)

*This word is not used, but is available if it ever becomes usable

Razlem 05:46, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

Well, my general rule is that if it works in English, Spanish, and Chinese, then it should be international enough because you have two EuroLangs and then an unrelated language… But I wasn't planning to work on semantics, I was just giving examples. I know a lot of languages have irregular verbs, but we should do the best we can to make it similar to our target groups: English people, Chinese people (who hate Esperanto lol).

1) Yes, in both cases, people will have to get moo from maa. However, in my system, they already know how to get moo. In your system, they have to memorize it by rote.

2) A Chinese person not used to derivation in general would have trouble using whim to change parts of speech. If you used a sample dictionary like above, then that's a lot of memorizing.

As for "to be" we should not do it that way. We should have a copulative particle, say "lu," and then we could have a seperate verb "to exist," say "jal."

So we could say "moo (jal) lu moo" for "rice is rice" and then for "rice was rice" we could use the verb "to exist" in the past tense "moo jubal lu moo." However, I think "lu" should be able to be omitted so you could just say "moo moo" and hope not to sound like a cow. <small style="color:#7F7F6F">—Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 17:09, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

We should include Spanish (or any other Romance language) as our target group, just to make it easier for 1B more people.

The only thing one needs to memorize (besides the root word itself) is this system:

XXXa- "to X" (ambitransitive, which exists in English, German, every Romantic Language, Hindi, Russian, and Arabic)

XXXY- "artificial noun that is X"

XXXo- "natural noun that is X"

XXXi- "like X"

XXXe- "(to verb)in an X manner"

Compare this to:

"Transitive verb (xax):

xox-something you xax

xyx-something artificial you xax

xix-xaxing

xex-xaxingly

intransitive verb (xaax):

xoox-something that xaaxes

xyyx-something artificial that xaxes

xiix-xaxing

xex-xaxingly"

Which also has 2 sets of semantic duplicates "xaxing" and "xaxingly"

We can do that for "to be", but I recommend that we don't allow omission. Razlem 19:06, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

Why not? Do we want a pro-drop language or not? Including Spanish for our target group is fine. But Esperanto is surprisingly popular…

Well, the only thing you need to know about my system is the system. With your system, once again. I tell you it's arbitrary. The relationship between noun and verb is usually irregular (or in other words, always irregular). Show me the full inflection of the following nouns "soup" "green" "candle" "eat" "see" "be like." I'd like to show you specifically with examples why it's irregular.

And I think our perceptions of adjectives differ. What I percieve is an adjective is basically a verb before a noun. <small style="color:#7F7F6F">—Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 19:26, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

Continued
The way I see drops; if the word isn't going to be used, why have that word?

Full inflections, translated approximately into English. Let me say before that since we haven't established the entire system, the translations may seem inaccurate (ex: an eat = a meal?). Using Spanish as an example, a "being" is "un ser", but translated back to English, it would be "a to be."

gel_l: soup
 * gelal: to soup
 * gelol: soup (natural)
 * gelyl: soup (artificial)
 * gelil: soupy
 * gelel: soupily

fajh__t: green
 * fajhaat: to green
 * fajhoot: something that is green (natural)
 * fajhyyt: something that is green (artificial)
 * fajhiit: green
 * fajheet: greenly

onp_r: candle
 * onpar: to candle
 * onpor: candle (natural)
 * onpyr: candle (artificial)
 * onpir: candle-like
 * onper: in a candle-like manner

j_d: eat
 * jad: to eat
 * jod: an eat (natural) [a meal?]
 * jyd: an eat (artificial)
 * jid: eat-like
 * jed: eat-ly

r_m: see
 * ram: to see
 * rom: sight (natural) [Both as a sense of sight and "a sight to behold"]
 * rym: sight (artificial)
 * rim: see-like
 * rem: see-ly

[since we have a table of correlatives, "like" is unnecessary]

j_l: exist
 * jal: to exist
 * jol: existence (natural) [Both as the state of being, and a being]
 * jyl: existence (artificial)
 * jil: exist-like
 * jel: exist-ly

This system allows a great deal of freedom for foreigners who aren't used to saying "have a house" or "be scared" (as my Russian/Spanish examples before). Razlem 23:41, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

1) Here's an IQ puzzle for you:

soup:soup::green:something green::candle:candle::eat:meal::see:spectacle::exist:existence::fire:___

Relationships:

to soup, soup: To soup is not a valid word and thus the relationship is ineffable

to green, something green: To green is invalid, thus the relationship is ineffable, even if "to green" meant "to be green," then "something green" would be the subject of "to be green"

to candle, candle: To candle is invalid, thus the relationship is ineffable

to eat, meal: meal is object of to eat

to see, sight: sight is object of see

to exist, existence: existence is the act of existing

See how it doesn't work?

2) Also notice how rarely one would ever use most of your derivatives. "Candlelike" is a lot less common than what could be using my system, "lighting a candle." Also notice how much nonsense you create. "Existly." "See-like." Notice how not only does my system not create any nonsense whatsoever, but almost all inflections can be used commonly.

3) Finally, I don't understand why it will create freedom for foreigners. First of all, "to have" is not used in all languages, but it is a pretty simple concept to get over, and keep in mind it appears in all three target groups: Chinese, Spanish, English. Sure, there's Arabic or Hungarian system (I have a boat becomes There exists a my boat), but honestly we don't need to worry because, once again, it shouldn't be a problem. And as for "to be" lol you're not understanding. In my system, you don't have to say "I am scared," you just say "I scared" and it works fine, because "scared" is a valid verb. It's not copulative lol.

4) Your perception of "an eat" as "a meal" is purely English. In Chinese it would be looked on as "eating" or even "as one ate." Furthermore, one could think it means "a bite of food," etc. Your system of trying to make sense from nonsense would not be the same for everyone, and it would create chaos. <small style="color:#7F7F6F">—Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 03:35, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

1) "to soup is invalid"

In our languages it is. The point is that this word is available if you ever need the verb form of "soup". Some of the translations were inaccurate, my mistake. I should have just stuck with my full system (something that is X, X-like, etc.).

2) In your system, how does one say "a candle-like object"? For your method of transitive verbs (with "light a candle" being the verb), it would translate as "a lighting a candle object", which I perceive to be a match or lighter. To do something "lighting a candlely" doesn't seem to make much sense either. When would one ever do something in this manner? What about "growingly" (simje)? Surely your system has an intransitive verb for "see". You would run into a similar problem with "seeingly".

3) You're saying that they should just "get over" it? It may be easy for us, but the common person can have a lot of trouble with basic concepts (I think we've both been in basic Spanish classes- "estoy una cura" -.-). While you're correct that the verb exists, it's not used the same in each language. When I said "be scared" I was referring to Spanish "tener vs ser", not your system.

4) If "an eat" isn't used, then it isn't used. ("meal" was not the intended definition, hence the question mark). It's available if it ever becomes usable.

5 :D) I've come across another snag with your system, please clear this up-

"Maa" means "eat rice" (a transitive verb), and "simja" means "grow" (intransitive). How do you say "grow rice"?

Since simja is intransitive, you can't use it with moo.

Which brings me to another confusing concept: If "wo maa" is "I eat rice", then "maa" is intransitive, right? You'd have to say "wo maa moo." (which seems pretty inefficient)

Razlem 05:29, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

1) I tell you, you just can't stick random invalidities and expect them to mean something, you know that. But note how virtually all inflections create such nonsenses.

2) A candle-like object is onpora, which lol n and p shouldn't be together, ompora.

Lighting a candlely is basically "while lighting a candle." It's not especially useful, but it's a lot better than "candlely." You don't add "ly" because it doesn't work for gerunds in English, while it may work in Chinese.

3) Well, someone's going to have to get over something surely. Someone who speaks some random African language would have trouble with some concept.

And as to "be scared" versus "tener miedo," we shouldn't worry, both would come from "siimas" meaning "to cause fright to." Thus "be scared" would be "jal lu siimos," or else another more complex grammatical form.

4) Note how in your system, there's a lot of ambiguity. You can't give definitions to inflections of words that have already been decided. That's the problem with your system. Only "jad" or "j-d" should have a definition, and all the other inflections should follow

5) If you want, I don't care. You can use "grow" transitively. Wo simja moo. But keep in mind to say "the rice grows," you would have to say "simja moo," not "moo simja."

However, with the current system, you would say "Wo jan moo simja," I cause rice to grow. Or you could take the Chinese approach and say "wo trijaaw moo," I raise rice.

Maa is technically transitive. You wouldn't say "wo maa moo," but you could say it for emphasis. Say you wanted to say "I eat brown rice," you might say "Wo maa iipii moo" or "Wo maa iipoo." But you could just use the normal word for "eat" and say "Wo jad iipii moo." <small style="color:#7F7F6F">—Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 19:49, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

If there's no object, then it isn't transitive. You have a subject "wo" and a verb "maa".

"In syntax, a transitive verb is a verb that requires both a direct subject and one or more objects. The term is used to contrast intransitive verbs, which do not have objects."

Your system is arbitrary, as its up to the speaker to decide when a verb is transitive or not. There is no linguistic difference in your transitive and intransitive verbs other than the English definition and English usage, which I know to be very irregular. Even if the object is understood (moo), it's still required for the verb to be transitive, or else the entire system would be chaos. In my system, every verb is ambitransitive. A transitive/intransitive distinction is not required with my system because I only have one set of inflection rules.

You can't possibly use the verb simja "grow" with an object because it is intransitive. You have to create an entirely new verb "grow rice." You can have it mean "grow something" instead, but then you're missing a word for "grow." Not to mention you'd have to say "wo besimja(?) sywo(?)" "I grew something myself" for "I grew."

In your example "wo jad iipii moo", jad must mean "eat something", and is therefore a transitive verb, rather than just "eat", which is intransitive.

I would like you to do the same exercise and fully inflect the same words.

Razlem 20:32, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

1) Not necessarily. You can still say "I eat" and be perfectly grammatical. I want to make the system further transitive by making sentences like "eat pie" instead of "the pie was eaten." I'm not sure of the grammatical terminology of this, but this is how I want it.

2) I didn't say that. I said we could decide whether we could make all verbs transitive with former intransitive verbs being in the formula "x trans y" = "x causes y to intrans."

3) Eat isn't intransitive. "I eat pie" is a perfectly grammatical sentence.

gel_l: drink soup
 * gelal: to drink soup
 * gelol: soup (natural)
 * gelyl: soup (artificial)
 * gelil: drinking soup
 * gelel: while drinking soup

fajh__t: green
 * fajhaat: to be green
 * fajhoot: something that is green (natural)
 * fajhyyt: something that is green (artificial)
 * fajhiit: green
 * fajheet: while being green

onp_r: candle
 * onpar: to light a candle
 * onpor: candle (natural)
 * onpyr: candle (artificial)
 * onpir: lighting a candle
 * onper: while lighting a candle

j_d: eat
 * jad: to eat
 * jod: something you eat (natural)
 * jyd: something you eat (artificial)
 * jid: eating
 * jed: while eating

r_m: see
 * ram: to see
 * rom: something you see, sight (natural)
 * rym: something you see, sight (artificial)
 * rim: seeing
 * rem: while seeing

j_l: exist
 * jal: to exist
 * jol: something that exists, being, something natural
 * jyl: something that exists, being, artificial
 * jil: exisiting, in existence
 * jel: while existing, while in existence <small style="color:#7F7F6F">—Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 21:09, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

If you want them all transitive, fine. An error though: you used "something that is green". This conflicts with the transitive system: So you wouldn't be able to use "to be" at all, because a person can't "be" something in this manner.
 * Transitive verb (xax):
 * xox-something you xax [therefore, it should be "something you be green", which is nonsense, same with "exist"]
 * xyx-something artificial you xax
 * xix-xaxing
 * xex-xaxingly

A question:
 * 1) How does one say "I see/eat" (intransitive)?

Eat is ambitransitive in English, Spanish, and a myriad of other languages.
 * "I eat"-eat is intransitive (you eat habitually)
 * "I eat pie"-eat is transitive (you eat an object, in this case, pie)

Every major Indo-European language has ambitransitive verbs. To make this distinction with basic verbs like "cook" or "see" would confuse them beyond belief.

Your formula "x trans y" = "x causes y to intrans" does not make sense:


 * I eat pie = I cause pie to eat

Or another way


 * I cause this to happen = I happen this ("happen" is strictly intransitive, you can't "happen" something)

I don't understand when you would ever use your adjective forms: "I am eating soup." There's a difference between an adjective and active voice.

Razlem 22:00, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

1) Gaah, once again you manage to ruin my system. When "I eat," I'm obviously eating something, whether habitual or not. It's nothing to do with habituality. Saying "I eat pie" is just as habitual. The divergence lies in the tense. "I am eating pie" is not habitual, as is "I am eating."

2) You can't happen something in English, but you definitely can in Terran. You can run something (cause something to run), grow something (cause something to grow), fly a plane (cause a plane to fly), but it's just a quirk of our language that you can't happen something.

3) It does not conflict with the transitive system.

fajh__t: green
 * fajhaat: to cause something to be green
 * fajhoot: something that is green (natural)
 * fajhyyt: something that is green (artificial)
 * fajhiit: causing something to be green
 * fajheet: while causing something to be green <small style="color:#7F7F6F">—Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 22:27, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

1) It has to do with objects. "I eat" has no object, so it has to be intransitive. "I eat pie" has an object, so it must be transitive. Since eat can either be transitive or intransitive, it has ambitransitivity, which your system doesn't account for.

2) How are those examples more efficient than (example) "I fly a plane", as would be used in my system?


 * The formula can not work unless the intransitive verb is in the passive voice "be Xen/ed". For example, "I eat pie" would become "I cause pie to be eaten."
 * Those examples happen to be identical in English. People can fly planes, and planes can fly. "Fly" in that example has 2 distinct meanings, even though the words are phonetically identical. Replace "fly" in "fly a plane" to "pilot" (which shares a meaning). "I pilot a plane" becomes "I cause a plane to pilot" (planes can't pilot themselves- and don't say "autopilot"- you know what I mean)
 * With your original formula, you make the direct object indirect and allow it to take the verb of the subject, which makes no sense at all.
 * Now, say "pilot" with the passive formula addition: "I cause the plane to be piloted"

3) It does.

"fajhoot: something that is green (natural)"

"xox-something you xax"

There's a huge difference in meaning for these words, in every language.

Razlem 22:44, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

Continued
Remember that we'll have to come up with many more derivatives, and a smaller system will be easier to deal with.

On the issue of derivatives, we'll either have to do particles or prefixes so as to not confuse the medial vowel. Razlem 13:44, June 19, 2010 (UTC)

So back to derivation systems, I've revised mine. Instead of just "to X", it is "to do/make X" instead.

to soup --> to do/make soup = gelal

to green --> to do/make green = fajhaat

to cook --> to do/make cook = ala

For the verb, think of the English "I do cook" and "I do not cook".

Nouns, instead of being "something that is X" would be "product of Xa-ing"

Soup = product of doing/making soup

[a] Green [object] = product of doing/making green

meal = product of doing/making cook

Better?

Razlem 18:02, June 19, 2010 (UTC)

That's just as bad. Green, cook, etc., are not nouns, and you can't do or make something that's not a noun. What we need is a completely verb-based system, and once everything is a verb, only then can we have a full regular system. <small style="color:#7F7F6F">—Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 22:26, June 19, 2010 (UTC)

I think we've shown that a verb-based system won't work for this language, and mine certainly won't either.

So what about a fully noun-based system:

fajhoot- natural green noun

fajhyyt- artificial green noun

fajhaat- to do/make a green noun

fajhiit- like a green noun

fajheet- in the manner of a green noun

This would mean creating artificial and natural particles [gy fajhaat- make a green art. noun].

alo- nat. something cooked

aly- art. something cooked

ala- to do/make something cooked (to cook)

ali- like something cooked

ale- in the manner of something cooked

All verb forms are transitive. To make the verb intransitive, add the adverb "hosem" (intransitively)

wo hosem ala = I intransitively cook something

wo ala (something)= I cook something

moo- rice

maa- to do/make rice

simjo- something grown

simja- to do/make something grown

You'd say "wo simja moo", which translates to "I [do/make something grown] rice"

Opinions?

Razlem 04:20, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

Please scroll up and find the conlang.org essay and actually read it. <small style="color:#7F7F6F">—Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 05:24, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

I did, and you even tried it, but it doesn't work as we've shown.

You marked the parts of speech and marked nouns for class, but you didn't mark the verbs for valency or grammatical voice. You assumed that each verb has a valency of one. Not to mention you threw adjectives out altogether and replaced them with passive voice.

The writer said these are required for this system to work.

Why wouldn't this noun-based system work?

Razlem 12:57, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

Yes it does work.

1) We are not darned talking about grammatical voice or valency. All Terran verbs have a valency of two, subject and object, ind object taken care of by a preposition.

2) Stop being eurocentric. In Chinese there are subjects and predicates (verbs and adjectives). Why do you need an adjectives? In Terran, adjectives are just verbs put before the noun. It's so redundant to say "I am happy" when you could just say I happy.

3) Well my system works even without adjectives. Oh my gosh.

4) How would you convey simple concepts, like "to be big"? Please do not say it's from "to do/make big." That doesn't make sense and believe it or not it's irregular. <small style="color:#7F7F6F">—Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 03:09, June 21, 2010 (UTC)

1) Well, if you read the essay, it says "This will almost certainly require that you mark words for part-of-speech, mark nouns for class, and mark verbs for argument structure (i.e., valency and case requirements) and grammatical voice." While it may be understood in English, you need to distinguish phonologically how these verbs can and can't be used.

2) Ok, how would you say "I cook a red soup with brown rice"? Better yet, how would you derive the pronoun "wo"?

3) All three of our target groups use adjectives. In the essay, the writer said you can derive adjectives from verbs.

4) It wouldn't make sense because you changed the system- "to do/make something big". But no, it wouldn't use this verb.

You'd need:

verb for "to be" = "to do/make something that is" = la

modifier "the state of -" = -tyylo

"like something big" = pni

And you have "la pnityylo" = to make the state of something big

Razlem 04:25, June 21, 2010 (UTC)

1) Well there are only two parts of speech. Every verb is ambitransitive, as you call it.

2) Wo kun iipukii moo ala baxukgii gelyl. Lit. I with brown rice cook red soup, but note the infix -ung- which makes it passive.

3) Chinese has "adjectives" but they're really just verbs that describe. And in my system, you do derive adjectives from verbs. Like I said, adjectives are basically verbs placed before nouns.

4) to make something big: tan pno

to do a significant action: haat tiiruko

The act/state maker could easily just be the infinitive. <small style="color:#7F7F6F">—Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 17:10, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

2) It would be much easier to use suffixes or prefixes, or separate particles altogether rather than infixes.

4) State/quality modifiers are attached to adjectives to form nouns. You wouldn't use "to be big" in place of "bigness".

With yours in brackets, noun-based in quotations:

to make something big: [tan pno] "pna"

to be big: [pna] "la pnityylo"

to do a significant action: [haat tiiruko] "tiiruka"

The do/make distinction is almost purely English, and an auxlang would be better off without it.

Razlem 18:35, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

2) Suffixes either mess up our system (-uun, -oop), are difficult to distinguish (-ang, an-, at), or are inefficient (-tubaan, -leetang). Prefixes are either confusing (ma-, xi-) or inefficient (sapda-, fojwong-). Separate particles are okay, but may get confusing with penultimate stress. Infixes are fun, easy to learn, and efficient, and they don't interfere with our system.

4) You wouldn't use "to be big" in place of "bigness." That's exactly the reason why. If we can cover more than one concept with a word without ambiguity, it would be preferable to adding a suffix.

The problem with your system is right there in the example. You make a quite simple concept relatively long to say (la pnityylo, total of 6 moras), and then you make hard concepts easy to say (pna, 2 moras, tiiruka, 4 moras).

The do/make distinction is not English, necessarily. But I want to clarify the different meanings:

a) "to do" as in "to do one's homework" is "to perform an action necessary to complete the state of something." This should be avoided because LOL I already got that covered. "To do homework": "pamija," "TO DO RICE" lulz "MAA."

b) "to do" as in "to do an action." That has its own verb (haat).

c) "to make" "to put something into a state of existence in a certain state." Sure, you could merge this with b) if you wanted, but isn't it better to keep them separate because they do mean different things, and the distinction exists in 2 of our 3 target groups, so yeah... Besides, it works with your correlative system. And we know what could happen in daily life, "Sally, what do you want to make?" "I want to make an act of going home." Easy to jut circumvent this, I lot the game, but you know...

d) "to make into" "to take something and make something else using the same object." Could easily be covered with "take ... make" like "take cat (conjunction) make cow."

e) something we should include is a particle "become." Sort of random, but it may help. <small style="color:#7F7F6F">—Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 14:58, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

2) The only problem I see with infixes is where to put them. Would they go after the second vowel? The first consonant? The antepenultimate syllable? With prefixes, it's always before the word, suffixes, always after. I'm not sure how suffixes could confuse the system. If you have "ala" and the suffix "-mor", "one who does-", It's apparent that "alamor" is a noun meaning "chef." Alternatively, "alamir" is "like a chef", and "alamyr" is an artificial chef. This works perfectly with a noun-based system.

Suffixes don't interfere with the meaning- "walk, walked, caminas, caminaste...". As long as you include the correct vowel in the suffix (like -tyylo), it should be fine. If we use strictly suffixes, it would be easier because the root would always be read first.

4) You still lost me. Examples?

The suffix "the state of" doesn't have to be "tyylo", it can just be "to".

And besides, la pnito- to make something be the state of bigness, is just the English translation


 * If one wants to say "rice is big", then they could say "pni moo- big rice", instead of "moo la pnito", though both would be understood as "rice is big". We don't have to follow the English grammar rules (fragments)

a,b ) But then you run into the transitive/intransitive dilemma again. I solve this by adding "hosem" (or possibly just "sem") to make the verb intransitive.

wo ala moo- I cook rice

wo ala sem- I cook.

c) In English they mean different things, and their use is totally arbitrary. Just because it exists in 2 of the languages doesn't mean it makes sense (irregulars exist in every language, but we don't want them at all).

d) What? take cat and make cow? o_0

"make into" would have to be some sort of affix: cow- tor, beef- torkool

e) Ok, but I'm not sure when we'd use it. (changes into?- but then it should be a verb)

Razlem 16:24, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

2) I would put them before the last vowel. Like gelaal, drink soup, would become "gelinaal," drank soup. Just an example

The problem with using suffixes is it would present problems to beginners trying to read Terran. They would find it difficult to find the part of speech, which would make it difficult to find the root, and difficult to look it up.

Sure we could do suffixes for some things, but it would be better to avoid them for tenses, etc. Btw we are not using a noun-based system.

4) We should make it grammatical to put "to be green" where "greeness" and "being green" would go in English.

"Being green causes you to be invisible in grass." –(gloss)–> "To-be-green cause not in grass to-see oneself."

"Your greeness is too green." –> "You to-be-green too is-green."

"To be green is fun." –> "To-be-green fun." They're all about the same thing. They all make "big" directly into a noun.

5) As for "big rice," no let's not go there. It's terrible for daily talk, and there's absolutely no reason to do so. A language needs to have a way to have complete sentences. Besides, adjectives and adverbs were created for FOCUS (key word), which is either the subject or verb. If no focus, we might as well cut adverbs and adjectives. And why are we making "to be" a verb to connect adjectives and nouns? We can just use verbs for that. Geez, I have a lot of trouble explaining these things.

a, b) We don't need to mark it. "Wo ala moo"=I cook rice. "Wo ala"=I cook. "Ala moo"="Rice is cooked" (lit. [Something- UNDERSTOOD ] cooks rice]). "Cook" in each instance has clear meaning.

c) Not really. "Do" is used for actions and "make" is used for nouns. Cases like "do homework" can be dealt with with verbs in my verb-based system.

d) I was trying to say "turn a cat into a cow." You could say "take cat make cow."

e) No. I mean like making a VP like "wear a hat" into "put on a hat" i.e. "become wearing a hat." It would even be nice to turn this into an aspect and thus an infix fused with tense. <small style="color:#7F7F6F">—Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 17:59, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

2) For a speaker of a language that doesn't use infixes on a regular basis, "gelinaal" is going to be a lot more difficult to dissect than "gelaalma"

You can tell "gelaalma" is a verb because the last vowel is an "a". Suffixes would include the medial vowels necessary to convey the part of speech, as "pnito" is "bigness" (noun). Tenses, we've already decided, are going to be particles.

4) I understand what you're saying, but the meaning of "being green" won't always be equal to "greenness."

5) "Good day", "Buenos dias", "Happy Birthday"... <-- Daily talk. There's a perfect reason to do so- it saves time. Compare "day is good" (3 syllables) to "good day" (2).

Rice is the subject and big is the adjective. Big describes rice. The adjective describes the subject.

--> "And why are we making "to be" a verb to connect adjectives and nouns?"

I'm not.

a,b) if you're going to have your verb-based system, then you must distinguish transitivity other than the English translation.

"Ala moo" means "(someone) cooks rice", but that does not for any reason imply that the rice has finished cooking.

c) Transitivity.

The reasons why I am not convinced your verb-based system will work:

1) The meaning of the verb is chosen arbitrarily based on cultural idiosyncrasies and chance conversation rather than a logical system. To derive "cat", would the verb be "pet cat" or "own cat" or "be cat"? There's no method to finding out.

2) You yourself are not decisive in its usage. You initially proposed a transitive system and an intransitive system. You later decided to make all verbs transitive, then all verbs ambitransitive, with absolutely no phonological distinction between verbs that are by linguistic requirement strictly one or the other. I have shown you why this system can not work again and again. You fix the mistakes, but in turn, create new ones.

My noun-based responses:

1) The verb is always "to do/make": a noun, a noun that is verbed, or a noun that is adjective . The verb is transitive and requires an object. Intransitivity is decided by the presence of the adverb "sem" in addition to there not being an object.

The noun is always:a noun, a noun that is verbed, or a noun that is adjective.

The adjective is always: like a noun, like a noun that is verbed, or like a noun that is adjective

The adverb is always: in the manner of (itmo) a noun, itmo a noun that is verbed, or itmo a noun that is adjective

It's completely regular with no arbitrariness. "To do/make" was chosen because nouns are collectively most understood as "made/done" rather than "eaten", "cooked", or irregularly "be".

2) I have completely ditched my initial system and replaced it entirely with this noun-based system. I have not made any fundamental changes to the current's rules of derivation.

You have yet to effectively denounce the noun-based system other than that it doesn't use English grammar.

If you still doubt its capabilities, test me.

Razlem 20:28, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Continued
I.

2) How do you know? Lulz I'm having fun with Tagalog. Tenses shouldn't be particles. Naturally the particle would "steal" stress from the verb and cause confusion, or else it would take no stress at all and be more confusing. If it took stress along with the verb, it would be inefficient. If we tuck it in nicely and regularly, then it shouldn't be confusing, as long as we limit the number of infixes. How, hard, after all, is it to locate "-um-" in a Tagalog verb, when it comes right after the first consonant.

4) Not exactly, but they're close enough and never used in the same context, so can't we exercise our infra-Anglocentricity and combine them? Just release that English instinct. They are the same now.

5) Those are not grammatical sentences, they are now interjections which are contractions, and they don't carry their intended meanings.

a, b, c) THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ASPECT. Here's my system:

ala = (something) cooks (something) ...............doesn't say much, but can be used to answer a question

wo ala = I cook (something) ............................you can say this is intransitive

ala moo = (something) cooks rice ....................also intransitive, but sorta flipped. Rarely used construction to emphasize the verb.

wo ala moo = I cook rice..................................transitive

The system has remained the same all along, but my horrible explaining skills make you think it's not been so. Note that an intransitive verb will never have an object and a subject, a transitive verb will always have an object. You don't need "sem" which would be horribly inefficient.

II.

1) Oh, lol. Never looked at it that way. Again my explaining problem. To derive "cat" could only come from one possible verb. There is no verb "to pet cat" or "to own cat," only "to see cat." This is because only one verb has a default object "cat." I mean there is an exact correspondence of 1:1 of noun to verb, except in extremely rare cases where a certain all-inclusive group has two unifying characteristics. Thus you could work backwards from the noun:

noun=cat

verb=to do a cat (i.e. to see a cat, and do not interpret this inappropriately)

adjective=doing a cat

adverb=while doing a cat

2) I didn't change the system at all, I just misused a lot of linguistifical vocabulations. All verbs were ambitransitive, except there used to be intransitive verbs and then I replaced them all with ambitransitive verbs.

III.

My main arguments against your system are:

1) Information flow. Your system, yes it works, but the information flow is terrible, and could pave the way for something like English, full of ...ums, pauses, and likes. You put unnecessary strain to get a verb. Imo the verb is the most important part of a sentence because it tells what's actually happening. People shouldn't have to derive their verbs if they need them quick. You could say "BUILDING...BURNS" rather than "BUILDING...MAKES STATE OF BEING BURNED," and that's been my philosophy since I first considered conlanging, way before I actually started.

2) General problems that come with a noun-based system. "To do/make destruction," yes it would work, but "To do/make bigness" wouldn't. This is because the verb "do/make" implies change. Thus you are making all verbs "achievement verbs" (verbs which show a change has been accomplished, without duration) which makes it impossible to convey some stuff without adding additional particles which could easily avoided. You may find that hard to believe, but in Chinese there's a strict line between achievement verbs and stative/durational verbs and it would be best not to blur the distinction.

3) Again, your system creates a bunch of rarely used words in easy inflections but it takes lots of typing/time to type/say relatively easy concepts. You could say "candlelike" with just one step of inflection (we may be the first people in history to use the word "candlelike") but it takes several inflections to say "lighting a candle," which in your system would be at least "like the act of doing an act of lighting a candle," which btw doesn't scrape the true meaning, and lulz don't create an affix just for this purpose because that's just an example of how your system is really not flexible. <small style="color:#7F7F6F">—Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 06:06, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

1) "Building burns"- Is the building burning something, or is it being burned? (Hooray ergativity :D) With the second example, it's clear that the building is being burned (though that's not exactly how you'd say it with the noun system).

roskyng la diilto - 5 syllables- building makes be the state of like something burned

Compare this to "the building is burning" in English- 6 syllables- (because we never only say "building burns")

You have semantic precision while avoiding confusion caused by ergativity.

2) Your system does that for some verbs also without a distinction (drink soup, eat rice, etc.)

But that is going into continuous aspect (am running, esta corriendo); a different subject entirely than what we're discussing here.

3) to do/make something lit - nuuja

nuuja onpyr- to do/make something lit candle :P

Wo nuuja roskyng, roskyng la diilto.

Razlem 14:20, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion regarding when one would use "la __to". Let me clear this up:

First, there is no verb "to be". Instead you have "la" which is "to do/make be" or simply, "do/make"

In English, "cook" is ergative. A subject can cook an object, and an object can cook.

With this noun system, "to cook" is "to do/make something cooked"

In actuality, there is only one verb- to do/make

A subject can make an object, but an object can not make.

A person can cook a soup, but a soup can not cook. Instead, the soup "makes the state of something cooked" - gelyl la alito

The soup can cook only if it's cooking an object. (The soup cooks a meal)

I cook soup = wo ala gelyl

Soup cooks= gelyl la alito

I burn candle = wo daal onpyr

Candle burns = onpyr la diilto

Now, look at these.

"Soup is green". The meaning of "make greenness" is different than "be green", so you can't say "fajhaat" or "la fajhiito"

Instead you just say "soup green"- gelyl fajhiit

Again, there is no verb "to be"

I am a building - wo roskyng- lit. "I building"

I am green - wo fajhiit- lit. "I green"

Since you have markers for noun and adjective, there isn't any confusion, and it's surprisingly easy to get over using "to be".

Finally, let me explain "sem" with some examples:

I cook (an understood object) (in this moment) = wo ala

I cook (an understood object) (for an unspecified time) = wo ala sem

I cook soup (in this moment) = wo ala gelyl

I cook soup (for an unspecified time) = wo ala gelyl sem

I cook soup for a living (or) on a daily basis = wo ala gelyl sem

I cook soup (as in "I am cooking soup") = wo ala gelyl

Let me know if I've missed something.

Razlem 01:50, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. That works decently, but actually no. A sentence has a subject and predicate, and you can't break that, no matter what language. You can drop a predicate, but you cannot remove it. You're crazy.

At this point, both of our systems are completely correct, and we're arguing over nothing. You defend your system, but you fail to prove it is better than mine. You have no defense against the information flow theory, because your system fails it. 2) Transitivity is different than aspect. I don't know why you put them together.  Your "sem" is actually a tense or aspect which would be put in an infix in my system...somehow.  But we're not here to argue about the tense/aspect system, not yet....

6) Actually, I change my mind about your system being correct. Do/make offers little flexibility.  It:

i) Is an achievement verb. All verb phrases derived from it are achievement phrases.

ii) Involves conscious action. It implies such, so it would not work to have it imply conscious action in some points and other times not.

iii) Signals the beginning of something. "To make" signalizes that something is being put into existence.  But how would that be reciprocated?

iv) Is limited to artificial objects when used for nouns.

v) Requires different roots for the concepts "sight" and "to see," doubling necessary vocabulary. <small style="color:#7F7F6F">—Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 05:28, June 25, 2010 (UTC)