734
edits
Verb form, noun form: Difference between revisions
verblike, nounlike → verb form, noun form
m (Uakci moved page Verblike to Verb form, noun form: name is better) |
(verblike, nounlike → verb form, noun form) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
We shall use the terms ''' | We shall use the terms '''verb form''' and '''noun form''' to refer to any strings of words that can function as “verbs” and “nouns” respectively. Namely, we’ll define | ||
; | ; verb forms: [[atomic verb|single verb words]] ({{t|toa}}, {{t|bụfoaq}}), [[serial verb]]s without arguments ({{t|dua maı}}, {{t|fuı tua mara}}), and special verb forms like [[predicatizer]]s ({{t|po jí}}) or [[quote]]s ({{t|shu ‹kası›}}) or [[ë|{{t|ë}}-phrases]] ({{t|ë tı súq ní}}) {{TODO|on the fence about whether this should include verbs with “prefilled” slots, i.e., object incorporation – {{t|choaı sâ nuı}}}}; finally including [[conjunction]]s ({{t|de ra fıe}}) and [[focus]]ed versions ({{t|kụloı}}) of those | ||
; | ; noun forms: [[determiner phrase]]s ({{t|cáo}}, {{t|ké paı mara}}), [[pronoun]]s ({{t|máq}}, {{t|hụ́la}}), and [[complementizer phrase|subclause]]s ({{t|ꝡä tı súq ní}}, {{t|lä nuaobo báq shıaq jâ}}); finally including conjunctions ({{t|pío de róı é fıe shía}}) and focused versions ({{t|tó báq lue}}) of those | ||
with the following idea in mind: | with the following idea in mind: | ||
: clause ≔ {{small caps| | : clause ≔ {{small caps|verb form}} + zero or more {{small caps|noun form}}s | ||
This reflects the way we think about the composition of clauses, also minding the fact that the grammar puts the | This reflects the way we think about the composition of clauses, also minding the fact that the grammar puts the verb form at the very front and all the noun forms after it in one sequence. It also saves us from the confusion. | ||
== The confusion == | == The confusion == | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
[[File:He leo maı jí báq paı âq.png|thumb|A grossly oversimplified look at the verb and verb-related phrases in the example sentence. Each blue node is a full contiguous phrase. Notice how there is no phrase that corresponds to <code>"he leo maı"</code>; rather, those three words are scattered across the tree and intermingled with determiner phrases. This is why we can’t call {{t|he leo maı}} a verb phrase with a clean conscience.]] | [[File:He leo maı jí báq paı âq.png|thumb|A grossly oversimplified look at the verb and verb-related phrases in the example sentence. Each blue node is a full contiguous phrase. Notice how there is no phrase that corresponds to <code>"he leo maı"</code>; rather, those three words are scattered across the tree and intermingled with determiner phrases. This is why we can’t call {{t|he leo maı}} a verb phrase with a clean conscience.]] | ||
[[File:He leo maı.png|thumb|Innately conceptualizing the | [[File:He leo maı.png|thumb|Innately conceptualizing the verb form {{t|he leo maı}} as a (discontiguous) template with slots for two nounlikes.]] | ||
* At the '''phonetic/textual''' level, we have strings of text (or sounds) that are conceptualized as verb-like or noun-like phrase-like things. This is where we identify ''' | * At the '''phonetic/textual''' level, we have strings of text (or sounds) that are conceptualized as verb-like or noun-like phrase-like things. This is where we identify '''verb forms''' and '''noun forms'''. | ||
*: We think of the string <code>"he leo maı"</code> as a binary “verb” or “predicate” followed by two “arguments”, <code>"jí"</code> and <code>"báq paı âq"</code>. We innately associate these fragments with “predicates” or “entities” at a pre-syntactic level. | *: We think of the string <code>"he leo maı"</code> as a binary “verb” or “predicate” followed by two “arguments”, <code>"jí"</code> and <code>"báq paı âq"</code>. We innately associate these fragments with “predicates” or “entities” at a pre-syntactic level. | ||
*:: You should be alarmed by the amount of scarequotes in this bullet point. | *:: You should be alarmed by the amount of scarequotes in this bullet point. | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
*: The problem here is that <i>verb phrase</i> isn’t a very intuitive concept to grasp or manipulate. <code>"he leo maı"</code> from before becomes: a fragment of a modality phrase ({{t|he}}) and two fragments of verb phrases ({{t|leo}} without its object and {{t|maı}} without its object). The full verb phrases in the example are discontinuous (peek at the diagram on the right): {{t|maı … báq paı âq}}, {{t|leo maı … báq paı âq}}, and finally {{t|leo maı jí báq paı âq}}. <code>"leo maı"</code> does not correspond to any one verb phrase, but fragments of four verb phrases torn out of a so-called '''verbal complex''' and stitched together to give an illusion of contiguousness. | *: The problem here is that <i>verb phrase</i> isn’t a very intuitive concept to grasp or manipulate. <code>"he leo maı"</code> from before becomes: a fragment of a modality phrase ({{t|he}}) and two fragments of verb phrases ({{t|leo}} without its object and {{t|maı}} without its object). The full verb phrases in the example are discontinuous (peek at the diagram on the right): {{t|maı … báq paı âq}}, {{t|leo maı … báq paı âq}}, and finally {{t|leo maı jí báq paı âq}}. <code>"leo maı"</code> does not correspond to any one verb phrase, but fragments of four verb phrases torn out of a so-called '''verbal complex''' and stitched together to give an illusion of contiguousness. | ||
*: | *: | ||
*: Similarly when | *: Similarly when noun forms are concerned, no one type of syntactic phrase corresponds to them: there are determiner phrases, complementizer phrases, but also focus phrases ({{t|kú jí}}), coordination phrases ({{t|jí róı súq}}), …. The list goes on. One could theoretically refer to them all collectively as “phrases acting nominally”, but this does not roll off the tongue whatsoever. | ||
* | * | ||
* At the '''semantic/denotational''' level, there are unary '''predicates/functions''' applied to various types of '''arguments'''. | * At the '''semantic/denotational''' level, there are unary '''predicates/functions''' applied to various types of '''arguments'''. | ||
*: Here, in turn, we find that not only has <code>"leo maı"</code> ever corresponded to one “predicate”, even though we like to colloquially think of it as a “verb” with an effective arity of 2 and the definition <i>{{x}} tries to love {{x}}</i>. Also, the actual denotation of the entire verbal complex is much grosser than a binary function, lol. | *: Here, in turn, we find that not only has <code>"leo maı"</code> ever corresponded to one “predicate”, even though we like to colloquially think of it as a “verb” with an effective arity of 2 and the definition <i>{{x}} tries to love {{x}}</i>. Also, the actual denotation of the entire verbal complex is much grosser than a binary function, lol. | ||
To recap: you could think of Toaq as a pipeline that takes a '''string''' | To recap: you could think of Toaq as a pipeline that takes a '''string''' to a '''tree''', and then to a '''logical form'''. We often find the most comfort talking about the strings as though they were parts of trees or even the trees themselves, and as though they were simplistic predicates that applied to a minimal amount of arguments in a neat way. In other words, we like to equivocate – and because of this, referring to verb forms as <i>predicates</i> or <i>verb phrases</i>, for instance, is only temporary relief for the learner before they dive into the deep syntax or (god forbid) the semantics and find that nothing that they’ve learned corresponds to what verb phrases and predicates actually look like. | ||
So the real purpose of saying <i> | So the real purpose of saying <i>verb form</i> instead of, say, <i>verb phrase</i> is '''not to use deep syntax terms to describe (and teach) surface-level Toaq'''. We want to match simple explanations with equally simple terms while remaining correct, and this is the solution we’re taking – save for pulling random Toaq roots out of our hat (like Lojban does with <i>sumti</i> and <i>selbri</i> and about everything else under the sun). | ||