Re: Some Thoughts on Word Classes (w/ Nifty Indentation) Rob Zook Thu, 20 Aug 1998 17:03:31 -0500 Saul Epstein wrote: >3. Deixis > a. Article > b. Pronoun > 4. Quality (I suspect 4 can be folded into 1b...) > 5. Quantity > 6. Operation > a. Logic > b. Syntax > (6a and 6b may end up being the same...) Ok, that sound like a pretty precise version of the nebulous thoughts I was trying to describe regarding how the entities and action/states, so naturally it looks fine to me. However, I would like you to explain how you see 4. above rolling into 1b. States? Should there be a affix to distinguish between state, action and quantity? Also, I do agree that in Formal Mode 6a and 6b will likely be exactly the same thing, but I suspect Informal Mode will not require that much precision. I'm not sure however, that I see the difficulty in describing a relation as distinct from an entity. Both of course have some fuzziness since they have somewhat arbatrary boundries usually relative to the person describing them. But as I see them, an entity should refer to any part of our perceptual field that we can identify as uniquely different from the rest of the perceptual field. If I see in front of me a grassy field, containing a single tree, then I could distinguish a tree and a grassy field. I could also "zoom in" as it were and distinguish the leaves of the tree from the limbs. All of these distinctions being somewhat arbetrary, and having fuzzy boundries, but distinct enough that any given Vulcan I use them on will generally "get" what I mean. Entities which I can point out and measure my defined boundries will naturally have less and less fuzzy boundries. These entities would not have a one-to-one correlation to what English calls nouns. Somebunall nouns would correlate to Vulcan entities. Highly abstract nouns like "peace" and "fortitude", label an indefinite set of real situations classed as similar, a set of relations. A relationship, to me at least, simply refers to a somewhat arbetrary connection" between one or more entities, a static representation of the entities and said connection one could call a state, or even another entity. I think that I agree with you though, and the above just re-words what you already said. One thing I think we should codify in the grammar rules of Whl'q'n, that we should class entities by their "level" of abstraction. Simply, does said point to an extensional entity? Measurable, or experienceable by you and others? This is sort of releated to the idea of evidential affixes, and this might be a simply way to codify what I mean. Perhaps by adding the affixes, below one could express this extensional vs intensional nature of the entity one speaks about. -aq - existential - "it's right there in front of me,you experience it too right now" -eq - experiential - "I experienced in some past time, you could have experienced it to had you been there" -iq - operational - "Even if we cannot experience it directly, I can tell detail steps on how to recreate the experience" -oq - institutional - "We all agree this intensional thing is real for us", like money, or justice -uq - hearsay - "Someone else experienced this and simply told me about it" -ak - subjective - "I experienced it but no one else could", like a feeling of pain, or emotion So, if I understand your proposed grammar additions, th'dhahqte would be roughly, "my song" as an entity, as opposed to the action, so th'dhahqte'aq would mean roughly, "my song (that you're experiencing right now)". But how would you specifically distinguish "I sing" from "my song", just th'dhahqte? If Marketa buys the grammar additions it would make the lexicon a little easier to maintain, we could simply supply a list of root words, and one can form the verb-like, gerund-like and other forms with affixes. Rob Z.