Word Classes (Part 1 Re: New project) Saul Epstein Wed, 24 Mar 1999 13:37:03 -0600 This is the most fundamental and broadest part, the introduction as it were, upon which all the other parts stand. It is also the part that I suspect is farthest from the state it needs to be in, mainly because I think it would be simplest if we regarded everything as an entity. But this is what's been said. ---------- 0596 - Some Thoughts on Word Classes (w/ Nifty Indentation) Saul Epstein 20 Aug 1998 09:26:56 -0500 1. Relation a. Action b. State 2. Entity a. Sentient b. Non-Sentient Classes 1 and 2, and their subclasses, are probably only distinguished due to the Vulcan predeliction for classification. Considered in terms of grammar, Whl'prahla contains a vast lexicon of "root" labels, for whom class is determined by role in a sentence -- and not always clearly, at that. Entities are easy enough to describe. They are things: material or conceptual, concrete or abstract. Vulcans, intellectually, at least, distinguish between sentient and non-sentient entities. Relations are more difficult. Most attempts to describe them wind up transforming them into entities before too long. (This is true in English, at any rate. A fluent speaker of Whl'prahla might have no trouble explaining the difference between relations and entities). In a sense, a relation is an entity considered from the inside. An example may clarify. Whl'prahla includes a word , which means "song" in the sense of a particular lyric composition or performance. In a sentence, one may say and mean by this either something like "I sing" or "my song." The first meaning employs as a relation, and specifically as an action. If the sentence were no longer than that, this meaning would be clearly understood: the speaker sings -- not as a matter of habit, but at the moment of speech. The second meaning employs as an entity, and would usually require more to participate in a complete sentence. For instance, "Terrans are listening to my song." (The infirm distinction remains, however: this sentence could also be translated as "Terrans are listening as I sing," or even "I sing; Terrans listen." There are means of eliminating such ambiguity, and the Formal Mode requires them.) A singer, being one who sings, is while the whole category of lyric composition and performance is . Summary: ROOT a particular thing, considered from the "outside" as a unit entity, or from the "inside" as an [action/state] [done by/characterizing] some other entity v-ROOT an entity who does the action expressed by ROOT vdi-ROOT an entity characterized by the state expressed by ROOT ROOT-te an entity, the category of such things as ROOT 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...) ---------- 0599 - Re: Some Thoughts on Word Classes Rob Zook 20 Aug 1998 17:03:31 -0500 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. ---------- 0600 - Re: Some Thoughts on Word Classes Saul Epstein Thu, 20 Aug 1998 20:06:48 -0500 Quotes from: Rob Zook Date: Thursday, August 20, 1998 5:03 PM > 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. Magnificent! > 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? Quality. Quantity, being a different kind of specification -- with an explicit morphology, no less -- should rightly stay separate. As for quality merging with state... Whl'prala has two words which, unmodified, represent entities: , meaning "red" (or "redness"); and , meaning "blood." But, also unmodified, these words can represent a quality or qualities posessed by the corresponding entities. "red blood" "blood red" The first term refers to an entity (blood) which is characterized by the sole quality of an abstract entity (redness). The second term refers to an abstract entity (redness) characterized by one quality of a concrete entity (blood). (Of course, Vulcans are unlikely to think of blood as red in general. But they might have occasion to describe something as , or "Terranblood red.") So, entities are characterized by qualities, and a state seems to be the characterization of one entity in terms of another entity's qualities. And since using a word to modify another in this way doesn't currently involve any marking (as with affixes, etc.) there doesn't seem to be a need to put words so used in a separate class. Although... It just occured to me that we could go the other way, lumping qualities and states together as 4, and making 1 consist only of actions. That would eliminate a need to come up with a label grouping actions with states... > 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. Probably not. I just don't know whether that will mean that Informal has two sets or that it will use one set with less precision. > I'm not sure however, that I see the difficulty in describing > a relation as distinct from an entity. Relation is not a satisfactory label, I'm afraid. Having thought of this, I find the prospect of separating actions from states as "major" classes very appealing. In any case, everything you say here pretty well illustrates the difficulty of description in terms other than those of entity... > 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. [snip] These are worth-while distinctions, especially for the Formal mode. > 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)". Mmm, I'm not sure. would represent... ah... the class of lyric compositions or performances possessed by me. So, my "complete works," also my skill or style, perhaps, as a lyricist or singer. This is an entity. (Not to be confused with , the more-than-ten plural of , a particular composition or performance.) > But how would you specifically distinguish "I sing" from "my song", > just th'dhahqte? Not exactly. , being a class, can't be interpreted as an action, that's true. can be interpreted as an action ("I sing (right now).") or an entity ("my (specific) song"). And I think, in a sense, neither interpretation is dominant, even in a sentence like en'[use] whl'pralahi th'dhahq it-use Vulcan-language-ACC I-song "My song is in Vulcan." OR "I'm singing in Vulcan." but that the Formal mode would include ways of forcing one interpretation. (In addition, including tense and aspect information would further disambiguate the action-or-entity role of a word...) > 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. I thought so, too. Such a lexicon would also be easier to use and, I think, better reflect the given morphology. So here's another possible set of classes... 1. Action 2. Entity 3. Deixis 4. Quality (or State) 5. Quantity 6. Operation ---------- 0601 - Re: Some Thoughts on Word Classes Rob Zook Thu, 20 Aug 1998 22:12:45 -0500 At 08:06 PM 8/20/98 -0500, Saul Epstein wrote: >So, entities are characterized by qualities, and a state seems to be >the characterization of one entity in terms of another entity's >qualities. And since using a word to modify another in this way >doesn't currently involve any marking (as with affixes, etc.) there >doesn't seem to be a need to put words so used in a separate class. >Although... It just occured to me that we could go the other way, >lumping qualities and states together as 4, and making 1 consist only >of actions. That would eliminate a need to come up with a label >grouping actions with states... Hmmm, the whole way you're regarding states now seems very foreign to me though, how are you defining states? >> I'm not sure however, that I see the difficulty in describing >> a relation as distinct from an entity. > >Relation is not a satisfactory label, I'm afraid. Having thought of >this, I find the prospect of separating actions from states as >"major" classes very appealing. In any case, everything you say here >pretty well illustrates the difficulty of description in terms other >than those of entity... Then we need to talk about what we both mean by states and relations. >> 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)". > >Mmm, I'm not sure. would represent... ah... the class of >lyric compositions or performances possessed by me. So, my "complete >works," also my skill or style, perhaps, as a lyricist or singer. >This is an entity. (Not to be confused with , the >more-than-ten plural of , a particular composition or >performance.) Well, then maybe we need to have a class of instatiating affixes to pin down the exact meaning of a root. >So here's another possible set of classes... > > 1. Action > 2. Entity > 3. Deixis > 4. Quality (or State) > 5. Quantity > 6. Operation Hmmm, I was actually thinking that we could better roll state into relations, maybe we should discuss this a little more :) ---------- 0602 - Re: Some Thoughts on Word Classes Saul Epstein Fri, 21 Aug 1998 15:49:12 -0500 Quotes from: Rob Zook Date: Thursday, August 20, 1998 10:12 PM > At 08:06 PM 8/20/98 -0500, Saul Epstein wrote: > >So here's another possible set of classes... > > > > 1. Action > > 2. Entity > > 3. Deixis > > 4. Quality (or State) > > 5. Quantity > > 6. Operation > > Hmmm, I was actually thinking that we could better roll > state into relations, maybe we should discuss this a little more :) Of course. Let's discard "relation" for the moment, because it fails to really say what needed saying, and go back to the ZC... We have actions, such as to stop, to walk, to kill, to eat, to live, and to die. We have states, such as existant, dead, and alive. We have entities. We have qualifiers, such as red and quickly. In the ZC, actions and states are classed together. This makes an intuitive kind of sense, I think, because English (like many other languages) uses a verb construction to form a sentence to express a state. ("The captain *is* dead.") But if a sentence refers to an entity's state in the process of expressing something else, this verb construction is not used. ("I mourn the dead captain.") This exactly matches the way entity-qualifiers are used. ("His blood *is* red." / "The sand drinks his red blood, just as it would a Vulcan's.") So my suggestion is that saying "a state of deadness characterizes the captain" is structurally very similar to saying "a quality of redness characterizes his blood." Our words like "dead" suggest a similarity to actions, I think, because they are derived from verbs; whereas our words like "red" aren't (at least, not obviously). So, I think, one could say to mean "the captain is dead;" and to mean "I mourn the dead captain." (Or, to make the captain the subject, , "the dead captain haunts _Enterprise_.") Is that any clearer? Or did I miss what you wanted to discuss? ;-) ---------- 0604 - Re: Some Thoughts on Word Classes Saul Epstein Tue, 25 Aug 1998 21:49:27 -0500 Quotes from: Rob Zook Date: Monday, August 24, 1998 9:36 AM > Saul Epstein wrote: > > > Quotes from: Rob Zook > > Date: Thursday, August 20, 1998 10:12 PM > > > > > At 08:06 PM 8/20/98 -0500, Saul Epstein wrote: > > > >So here's another possible set of classes... > > > > > > > > 1. Action > > > > 2. Entity > > > > 3. Deixis > > > > 4. Quality (or State) > > > > 5. Quantity > > > > 6. Operation > > > > > > Hmmm, I was actually thinking that we could better roll > > > state into relations, maybe we should discuss this a > > > little more :) > > > > Of course. > > > > Let's discard "relation" for the moment, because it fails > > to really say what needed saying, and go back to the ZC... > > Er, hmmm, yup. In that case, nevermind what I said about > relations :) [major snip] > > Is that any clearer? Or did I miss what you wanted to > > discuss? ;-) > > Well, I probably wanted to get into a nasty philosophy of > language snarl involving relations/states and entities, but > we can ignore that for now :) As much as I like such things, for several different reasons, my current inspiration is to see how much of the likely-vast zone of agreement we can articulate as a means of fleshing out the ZC... > Oddly, enough this sounds very similar to something I was trying to > explain to you, a few months back. But regardless, yeah that's how > I read the section on qualifiers too. Fantabulous. I seem to be on a bit of a roll. Jelly, I think. Hope it doesn't stain. Um, here's this again: Summary: ROOT a particular thing, considered from the "outside" as a unit entity, or from the "inside" as an [action/state] [done by/characterizing] some other entity v-ROOT an entity who does the action expressed by ROOT vdi-ROOT an entity characterized by the state expressed by ROOT ROOT-te an entity, the category of such things as ROOT In case these prove acceptable, let me explain the "etymology" behind v-ROOT and vdi-ROOT, since I didn't pull them completely out of the air. The idea behind the particle is to adapt the from the pronouns as a kind of relative pronoun prefix meaning "one who..." (So, "one who sings"="singer," "one who kills"="killer." I actually slipped into an earlier post when I was first thinking about this, but then I remembered the deictic particle...) is intended to modify by adapting the instrumental partical , so that the result means something like "by someone/thing..." (So, "sung," "slain." I realize these English glosses make the terms seem more like adjectives -- and they can certainly be used as such. But they are then specifically output-of-process terms. For instance, as a qualifier might mean "melodious" while might mean "murderous" or "deadly.") ---------- End Part 1 -- from Saul Epstein locus*planetkc,com - www,planetkc,com/locus "Surakri' ow'phacur the's'hi the's'cha'; the's'pharka the's'hi surakecha'." -- K'dvarin Urswhl'at