Specia (Part 6 Re: New project) Saul Epstein Thu, 25 Mar 1999 16:57:44 -0600 As a small bit of explanation, this is my "catch-all" category, the contents of which are undeserving of simply being lumped together. The idea is that it concerns structures whose purpose is to narrow the identification or classification of ... things -- in a lot of different ways. At the moment it includes sort-of-analogues to articles, pronouns, and prepositions. The work I see required here is to sort it all out, try to determine how much of these things can be treated as a single system, etc. ----- 0275 - Spatial and Temporal Aspect Words in English Rob Zook Thu, 11 Dec 1997 20:49:32 -0600 Hi all, I have put together a list of English words which have to do with Time and Space and listed them in Catagories similar to the ones used in Lojban. Spatial Tenses: I only found one spatial tense in the lexicon, a locative affix. Which comes in five tenses: i- this here (extensional short distance locative) e- this near (intensional short distance locative) a- that there (extensional medium distance locative) o- that there (intensional medium distance locative) u- that yonder/far away (long distance locative) English has two general locatives: this and that which have many modifying words one can add to them to indicate something more specifically. Spatial Intervals (measures a length, height, or width): --------------------- very short/tiny interval short/medium interval long/very long interval whole spatial interval Intensional/Extensional Distentials (how close or far): ------------------------- short distance - near/here medium distance - away/there long distance - far/yonder Subjective Directionals (where): Movemental (how does something move): ---------------------- ---------------------------- in front (of) forward behind backward on the left (of) leftward on the right (of) rightward above upward(ly) below downward(ly) within into surrounding orbiting transfixing passing through next to moving while next to bordering moving along the border (of) adjacent (to) along towards arriving at away from departing from inward (from) approaching outward (from) receding from tangential (to) passing (by) coincident (with) moving to coincide with around revolving (around) north (of) northward(ly) south (of) southward(ly) east (of) eastward(ly) west (of) westward(ly) Spatial Interval Quantities (adds some objectivity to above by providing a measure in some units): ---------------------------- (n) units whole spacial interval Spatial Event Contours (locative relative to some spatial interval): --------------------------- perfective in space; beyond the place of ... continuative in space; throughout the place of ... initiative in space; on this edge of ... achievability in space; at the point of ... completive in space; at the far end of ... anticipative in space; up to the edge of ... superfective in space; continuing too far beyond ... Spatial Dimensionality (how many dimensions of space): --------------------- (1-D) on a line (2-D) in an area (3-D) through a volume (4-D) throughout a space/time interval Temporal tenses: Vulcan does have a few more temporal suffixes than spatial suffixes but not as many as it could. Where Vulcan temporal tenses appeared in the Lexicon I have added them below and to the right of the English words. I can see now how none of the actionsart tenses seem like basic time tenses. Except one -mu- for present tense, I think, the rest represent time event contours, or "when" during a time as if it were a process. Basic Temporal Distensials (how much time from now): ------------------------------ short time - (x)while medium time long time Temporal Locatives (when): --------------------------------- after - future tense during/simultaneous - present tense - Vulcan infix "mu" before/prior to - past tense Temporal Interval Contours (when relative to some time period): ------------------------------------ will be then has been, is now in the aftermath of is now/simultaneously, is now in the middle of is going to, is now just about to, is now anticipating was then will be going to will have been during and after was going to before and after before and during had earlier been Temporal Intervals (how long a time period): --------------------- short time interval medium time interval long time interval whole time interval medium time interval offset towards the future - for a while after medium time interval spanning the present - for a while during medium time interval offset towards the past - for a while before Temporal Interval Properties: (how often) ------------------------------ regularly typically continuously irregularly atypically intermittently habitually contrary to habit Temporal Interval Quantities (Adds some objectivity with specific quantities in some unit): ---------------------------------- ``n'' times whole time interval Temporal Event Contours (when during a process): --------------------------------------- perfective - in the aftermath of, since - Vulcan infix "zo" continuative - during - Vulcan infix "tsu" initiative - at the starting point of achievative - at the instantaneous point of cessative - at the ending point of - Vulcan infix "kse" pausative - a temporary halt resumptitive - resumption of a paused process completive - at the natural ending point of - Vulcan infix "pe" anticipative - in anticipation of, until - Vulcan infix "dju" superfective - continuing too long after natural end of Actuality, Potentiality and Capability: --------------------------------------- actuality capable of/potentially* can but has not can and has *this appears to be the default tense for A/S words ---------- 0411 - Enhancing/Reforming the ZC Temporal Grammar Rob Zook Sat, 21 Mar 1998 19:00:57 -0600 Hi all, Back in Dec. I posted a message entitled "Spacial and Temporal Aspect words in English", parts of which Saul found objectionable. Since then he and I have tried to resolve the dispute over how to put some of my ideas in a form, which would fit in well with the few actionsart particles in the ZC. After much long debate, we have resolved the dispute for temporal tenses (I think ;-). So I now post a summary of said tenses, and how one could use them in Vulcan sentences. I have randomly chosen Vulcan particles for ease of demonstrating how the tenses would look in Vulcan and one should not consider the Vulcan particles as canon quite yet (at least not until Marketa tells us which ones she hates the look of, hopefully none ;-). Basic Tense: One can express time in several ways: first one can specify a location in time, relative to some other location in time. A location in time, by default in vulcan is relative to the moment of time in which the utterance occurs, afterward called simply "the moment of utterance". One can express this temporal location or tense in one of five forms: 1. past (li) 2. precessive (le) 3. present (la) 4. successive (lu) 5. future (lo) Example 1,1: th'k'tvehi k'wawjehi lehe th'-k'tvehi k'wawje -hi le -he I -write invitation-[direct object] [precessive]-[locative] "I wrote the invitation (immediately before now)" In this example the event "I write the invitation" occurred a immediately before now (the moment of utterance). Example 1,2: th'prala spok-hi li th'kahs'wanhe th'-prala spok-hi li th'-kahs'wan -he I -talk spok-[direct obj.] [past] I -rite of passage-[locative] "I talked to Spock (relative to my rite of passage in the past)" or more simply "I talked to Spock before my rite of passage" In this second example above the event "I talked to Spock" occurred some indefinite time in the past, not very close to the event - "my rite of passage". It's assumed both the speaker and the listener know when the event "my rite of passage" occurred. Duration: One can in addition specify that some event has a duration. When the duration of the event itself has some significance. very long time (ri-) long time (re-) medium amount of time (ra-) short time (ru-) very short time (ro-) Example 1,3: th'riprala kirkhi th'-ri -prala kirk-hi I -[v. long duration] -talk kirk-[direct obj.] "I talk to Kirk (for a very long time)" If the duration of the event has no significance for the utterance then one can simply regard the event as a point in time, as we did in example 1,1 and 1,2. Interval Contours: One can also call a duration and interval of time. Sometime one may find it necessary to describe the "shape" of the interval of time. One can call this the "contour" of the interval. In it's most general form, an interval contour can be regular (-ga), or irregular (-iga), for example on a time line these would look like: <-Interval Duration-> +-+ +-+ +-+ +-+ +-+ + |_| |_| |_| |_| |_| Regular: 0----+----1----+----2 or <-Interval Duration-> ++ +--+ ++ +-+ +---+ |_| |_||_| |_| |_ Irregular: 0----+----1----+----2 For example in the book Dune, by Frank Herbert, the Freman walk in a very irregular, unrhythmic pattern. Since they live on a desert planet inhabited by huge worms which live under the sand, and the worms are attracted to rhythmic sound, by walking in an irregular step, the Freman disguise the sound of their foot steps making it seem like the natural shifting sounds of the sand itself. So they can walk the sands of Dune, safe from the worms. Since the time between each step varies by a different amount each step, one would describe it with an irregular interval contour. While the average human and vulcan walking, one would describe as regular since the period of time between each step is roughly the same (unless they limp, or have a missing limb, of course). Example 1,4: *Freman imroi'iga, uks *whl'q'n imroiga *Freman imroi-'iga uks *whl'q'n imroi-ga *Freman walk -[irregular] but *Vulcan walk-[regular] "*(the) Freman walks irregularly, but *(the) Vulcan walks regularly" The noise a siren makes, for example, may have a regular interval contour, while white noise has an irregular interval contour. Vulcan also has more descriptive interval contours like continuous(-fe) /intermittent(-ife), rhythmic(-bu)/arrhythmic(-ibu), harmonious(-ve) /dissonant (-ive), sine-wave-like(-fo), triangle-wave-like(-wu), square-wave-like(-ne). Period Contours Another set of interval contours describe how multiple occurrences of an event, proceed during a period of time. For example if I write stories every day, one could say I do this often. One could get more specific and say not only do I write often but I do so habitually. Some of the period contours one finds in Vulcan: frequently(-ba)/infrequently(-iba), habitually(-je)/non-habitually(-ije), ..,etc (more complete list in the works). Example 1,5 th'k'tvehije net'no'kwahi th'-k'vehi-je net'no'kw-e -hi I -write -[habitually] story -[plural mut.]-[direct obj.] "I write stories habitually". Event Contours: Alternatively one may need to specify the location of points within an event, and the sum of all the points one can describe in an event is called an event contour. One can describe the contour of an event in Vulcan, as having ten distinct parts: 1. (-ba-) premature initiation - before expected start of an event 2. (-tci-) initiation - the beginning of an event 3. (-no-) postmature initiation - after expected start of an event 4. (-tsu-) duration - an interval within the event 5. (-mu-) continuative - any instantaneous point within an event 6. (-vza-) suspension - pause during the event 7. (-gzo-) resumption - resumption of the event after a pause 8. (-di-) premature completion - completion of an event before it's predicted end 9. (-kse-) completion - the end of an event. 10.(-pe-) postmature completion - completion of an event after it's predicted end One uses these to describe the parts of an event and how they all relate to each other. We could expand on examples 1,1 and 1,2 like this: Example 1,6: th'k'tvehi k'wawtcijehi lehe th'-k'tvehi k'waw -tci -je -hi I -write [invitation1]-[initiation]-[invitation2]-[direct obj.] le -he [precessive]-[locative] "I wrote the beginning of the invitation (immediately before now)" One could also say th'k'tvetcihi k'wawjehi el-he, which would mean, "I began to write the invitation (immediately before now)". Example 1,7: th'prala spok-hi li th'kahs'tsuwanhe th'-prala spok-hi I -talk Spock-[direct obj.] li th'-kahs' -tsu -wan -he [past] I -[invitation1]-[duration]-[invitation2]-[locative] "I talked to Spock (relative to the duration of my rite of passage)" or more simply "I talked to Spock during my past rite of passage". Interval Aspect: Sometimes an interval one wishes to describe does not end or start evenly with the relative moment, or moment of utterance. In these cases one can describe this with a set of Interval overlapping particles. Really this consists of an expansion of the Event Contour -tsu- (duration). 1. (-in-) before and during (imperfect - initial) 2. (-ex-) before, during and after (progressive) 3. (-ad-) during and after (imperfect - final) 4. (-tsu-) during 5. (-od-) before and after, but not during Example 1,8: Surak kja li 'Ankhexhe Surak kja li 'Ankh -ex -he Surak exist [past] The War-[progressive]-[locative] "Surak existed (relative to before, during and after the past WAR)" Order of affixes: Naturally one can form very complex statements of how events proceed in time, and you may have a tense, a duration, an interval contour an event contour, and an aspect all applying to the same event. So one must apply the particles in the appropriate order to prevent confusion. 1. [tense] 2. [duration]- 3. First syllable of infixed word- 4. [interval event contour]- 5. [interval aspect]- 6. Remander of infixed word- 7. [interval contour] 8. [periodic contour] 9. [locative suffix] If you have to use more than two of any of these particles (not including the tense), then you combine all the particles (with the tense if it is used) in the above order and place in front of the word it applies to as if it were it's own word. Example 1,9: whl'q'ne 'mnuba kahs'wonhi li 'Ankhod'he whl'q'n-e 'mnu -ba kahs'won -hi Vulcan -[plural mut.] mastery-[frequent] "rite of passage"-[direct obj.] li 'Ankh -od -he [past] "THE WAR" -[before and after]-[locative] "Vulcans mastered the kahs'won frequently, (relative to before, and after the WAR)" *Not sure if Vulcan should have definite articles or not, if it did one would need to place such an article here. End Notes: I'm thinking that in formal mode, you would always need to specify the location reference, even if the if the reference is null(for the moment of utterance). So formal mode "immediately before the invitation": k'wawje lehe, and informal mode: le k'wawje ---------- 0429 - Re: Bulletin from Pralakhute Ngox Rob Zook Fri, 03 Apr 1998 15:01:37 -0600 Hi all, Now for the second part of my proposed Space-Time words in Vulcan. Spatial Grammar: Just as you can specify the location of some event in time, you can also specify it's location in space. Again, one can do this in reference to the location of the speaker, or in reference to the location of some other event. Demonstratives/Degrees of Deixis: In Vulcan one has a set of particles for verbally "pointing" to a existent thing. One calls these Demonstratives. They point to something "out there" in reference to the speakers location. Demonstrative: i- this here (short distance location) e- this near (short distance location) not visible a- that there (medium distance location) o- that there (medium distance location) not visible u- that yonder/far away (long distance location) Example 4,3,1: ranka a-le'matya ran -ka a- le'matya kill-! [that there]-le'matya "Kill that (visible) le'matya" The demonstrative particles also specify a subjective distance, and whether or not the speaker can see the extensional entity, as well as general location. Direction: One can also specify more specific locations by giving directions from your position. Vulcan has a set of prefixes which can give more specific locational reference. Directionals: static dynamic yi- in front (of) - forward ye- behind - backward ya- on the left (of) - leftward yo- on the right (of) - rightward yu- above - upward y*'- below - downward wi- north (of) - northward we- south (of) - southward wa- east (of) - eastward wo- west (of) - westward wie- within/between - into lou- surrounding - orbiting/revoluting mai- transfixing/inside - passing thru hei- next to - (moving) while next to diu- bordering - (moving) along the border of tci- adjacent (to) - along thu- towards - arriving at qia- away from - departing from rei- inward (from) - approaching gae- outward (from) - receding coi- tangential (to) - passing by tsu- coincident (with) - (moving) to intercept/coincide with To specify a location relative to oneself then one combines the necessary directional affixii and add the suffix -he to indicate the word refers to a location. When directions point to nothing specific, the speaker assumes the position as the referent. Unless otherwise specified in the sentence, then the location belongs to the object. For more than one object one must use more specific grammar. Example 4,3,2: iw'riaq o-whl'q'nhi titotuhe iw'-riaq o -whl'q'n-hi he -[occupy space] that yonder-Vulcan -[acc.] yi -yo -yu -he [front]-[right]-[above]-[locative] "That Vulcan yonder lies to my front, right, and above me" One can also say the action/stateless version as: . Example 4,3,3: in'riaq d'malluhi pihe in'-riaq d'mallu-hi pi -he it -[occupy space] d'mallu-[acc.] [north]-[locative] "The d'mallu lies north of me" One can say the action/stateless version as: . When an object references the location as itself, then the locative and directional particles belong around it: Example 4,3,4: li iw'imroi wei'ah'Hrak'he surak li iw'-imroi wei' -ah'Hrakh -'he surak [past] he -walk within-"the forge"-[locative] surak "Surak walked within/inside of the desert" This one represents the sense of doing an action within a specified space, rather than the sense of entering it. Each directional also has a "dynamic" aspect in which it can modify a verb, to describe in what direction the action takes place. Almost invariably this action takes the form of a movement. In which case one uses one of the other suffixes, instead of the location suffix -he. Example 4,3,5: iw'imimroi waspokha le'matya iw'-imimroi wa -spok -ha le'matya he -walk+[intensive reduplication] [east]-Spock-[dative] le'matya "The le'matya ran eastward to Spock" Example 4,3,6: li iw'imroi wei'ah'Hrakh'ha surak li iw'-imroi wei -ah'Hrakh -'ha surak [past] he -walk [within]-"the forge"-[dat.] surak Example 4,3,7: One can also specify a location relative to something else, in which case one applies the prefixes to the something else, along with the suffix -he, to indicate a reference to a location. Then the word with the locative suffix acts as the location for the object of the sentence. Even when you specify a entity as the location, it does not occupy the subject place, but belongs always to the object. The speaker still assumes the subject place. Example 4,3,7: in'riaq le'matyahi yeyuspokhe in'-riaq le'matyahi ye -yu -spok -he it -[occupy space] le'matya-[acc] [behind]-[above]-Spock-[locative] "The le'matya was above and behind Spock" In informal Vulcan one might also say this as: yeyuspokhe le'matya which would mean essentially the same thing in a less than complete sentence. If on wishes to locate the subject in relation to the object, then one only has to add the directional prefixes and -he locative suffix to the object word, around any other object suffixes. Example 4,3,8: th'prala itikomi'hihe th'-prala i -ti -komi -hi -he I-speak [this here]-[front]-human-[direct object]-[location] "I speak in front of this human" When you have an actual subject and object, and you want to locate either object or subject in relation to some third entity, and not each other, then you must give the location entity the directional particles and the locative suffix. Then you must also index the locational entity with a number, and index the subject/object located with the same index. In this way one can locate both the subject and object with two different locations. You can also, indicate a that an object or subject in a succeeding clause, uses a location in a preceding clause, by specifying a location index. This means that within a sentence, each location index must have a unique number. Example 4,3,9: th'prala xri'spokhi xri'atile'matyahe th'-prala x -ri'-spok-hi I -speak [index]-1 -Spock-[direct obj.] x -ri'-a -ti -le'matya-he [index]-1 -[that there]-[front]-le'matya-[locative] "I speak to Spock who's in front of that le'matya there" As opposed to , which would mean "while in front of a le'matya, I speak to Spock". Subjective Distance/Interval: One can also specify a subjective distance if one does not use a demonstrative. For example you rarely use a demonstrative when describing a location for an event in the past. The following particles refer to a distance, unless the context specifies otherwise, like in the following section on Dimensionality. Distance/Intervals: fi- very short fe- short fa- medium fu- long fo- very Example 4,3,10: th'prala spokhi fihe th'-prala spok -hi fi-he I -speak Spock-[direct obj.] [very short distance] "I speak to Spock (who was a very short distance away)" One might also want to speak in terms of the edges of a location. In which case one can use the spatial event contours: Spatial Event Contours: -hui- perfective, beyond the place of -rie- continuative, throughout the place of -fea- initiative, on this edge of -kao- achievative, at the point of -ksi- completive, at the far end of -xou- anticipative, up to the edge of -tco- superfective, too far beyond Example 4,3,11: th'd'va'num titc'te'hi ah'huiHrakhe th'-d'va'num titc-te-'hi I -search live-[gerund]-[direct object] ah' -hui -Hrak ["the forge"-1]-[beyond the place of]-["the forge"-2] "I will search for life beyond the place of the great desert" Example 4,3,12: iwe's'titc ah'reiHrak le'matya iwe'-titc ah' -rei -Hrak they-live ["the forge"-1]-[Throughout the place of]-["the forge"-2] le'matya le'matya "Le'matya live throughout the great desert". Finally, one can use a couple of special particles for spatial concepts not covered by the above: Spatial Modifiers: ngi- nowhere ha- everywhere za- entire interval Example 4,3,13: liri th'imroi zafu'ah'Hrak li -ri th'-imroi [past]-[very long time] I -walk za-fu-ah'hrak [whole interval]-[long interval]-["the forge"] "long ago I walked the entire long length of the great desert" ---------- From: Saul Epstein To: vulcan-linguistics*shikahr,com,inter,net Subject: Gender in Pronouns Date: Tuesday, October 13, 1998 1:20 PM Hello, all. I'm starting to work on a new description of the part of the ZC Grammar that includes pronouns, and I am once again reminded that I don't like part of it. As originally stated, pronouns are distinguished in 3 genders in the 3rd person: he/these men, she/these women, and it/these things. On its face, this distinction seems to prevent the possibility of referring to a person in the abstract, as it were, without specifying gender, and to prevent the possibility of referring to a group of people which includes both genders without generalizing (and excluding one or the other). The set of affixes looks like this: masculine feminine neuter w wl n I've been thinking about it and, if we can agree this is a problem, I've arrived at two solutions. The first is to create a fourth category of distinction, something like "general sentient" which would refer to a person or people without specifying gender. The set of affixes might look something like: sentient | non-sentient -------------------------------+------------- general | feminine | masculine | --------+----------+-----------| n w | l | r | The second solution is to allow the neuter to include sentient things. In other words, a hypothetical person would be an "it" just like an actual or hypothetical thing. A group of people of mixed gender would also be "things." So then we would have: masculine feminine (n)either/both w wl n The chief advantage to the first solution seems to be that it allows greater precision. The chief advantage to the second solution seems to be that we don't have to adopt any surface changes, only a change in the way the surface is understood. I welcome any comments... ---------- From: Saul Epstein To: vulcan-linguistics*shikahr,com,inter,net Subject: Re: Gender in Pronouns Date: Tuesday, October 13, 1998 9:38 PM (Quotes Rob Zook: Tuesday, October 13, 1998 3:09 PM) > Saul Epstein wrote: [...] > > I've arrived at two solutions. The first is to create a fourth > > category of distinction, something like "general sentient" which > > would refer to a person or people without specifying gender. The > > set of affixes might look something like: > > > > sentient | non-sentient > > -------------------------------+------------- > > general | feminine | masculine | > > --------+----------+-----------| n > > w | l | r | > > > > The second solution is to allow the neuter to include sentient > > things. In other words, a hypothetical person would be an "it" > > just like an actual or hypothetical thing. A group of people of > > mixed gender would also be "things." So then we would have: > > > > masculine feminine (n)either/both > > w wl n [...] > Well, I would favor the first solution, but I advocate keeping the > current suffixes for masculine, feminine and neuter non-sentient, > and creating a new suffix for neuter sentient. At this point I'll come out into the open and say I disapprove of the form of the original masculine and feminine particles almost as much as I disapprove of the obligatory gender-marking itself. looks too much like a derivative of . I know that the derivation could just as easily run the other direction, so that is prior. But it bugs me nonetheless. Suppose and were obligatory, the one meaning "sentient" and the other meaning "non-sentient." Suppose further that could be optionally modified by the addition of meaning "feminine" or meaning "masculine." That would preserve two out of the original three pronouns intact, re-assign the third, and create a fourth. > However, if that's unacceptable, I still think we should at least > address the problem by modifying the meaning of the neuter > non-sentient to include sentients as well. You mean, the second of my first two suggestions? ---------- From: Rob Zook To: vulcan-linguistics*shikahr,com,inter,net Subject: Re: Gender in Pronouns Date: Wednesday, October 14, 1998 7:58 AM Saul Epstein wrote: > > > Well, I would favor the first solution, but I advocate keeping the > > current suffixes for masculine, feminine and neuter non-sentient, > > and creating a new suffix for neuter sentient. > > At this point I'll come out into the open and say I disapprove of > the form of the original masculine and feminine particles almost as > much as I disapprove of the obligatory gender-marking itself. > looks too much like a derivative of . I know that the derivation > could just as easily run the other direction, so that is prior. > But it bugs me nonetheless. Hmm..,now that you mention it, that does seem a little distressing. I had not even registered that fact. > Suppose and were obligatory, the one meaning "sentient" and > the other meaning "non-sentient." Suppose further that could be > optionally modified by the addition of meaning "feminine" or > meaning "masculine." That would preserve two out of the original > three pronouns intact, re-assign the third, and create a fourth. Male Female sentient non-sentient ZC w wl n New wr wl w n I like the way that looks, yes. > > However, if that's unacceptable, I still think we should at least > > address the problem by modifying the meaning of the neuter > > non-sentient to include sentients as well. > > You mean, the second of my first two suggestions? Yes. ---------- From: MDriest To: vulcan-linguistics*shikahr,com,inter,net Subject: RE: Gender in pronouns Date: Wednesday, October 14, 1998 12:38 PM I think the first possibility would work better and I agree with T'Pel. It is more precise. The chance that any Vulcan would stoop to verbal abuse is quite small, my Lady, but the language is probably capable of it. There is another possibility, T'Pel already told us, we could simply not sort for gender. We could make a distinction on grounds of something else. I thought is was one of our goals to create an alien language, so why not create something no Terran language has? In some way, I find sorting on male/female/neuter a tiny bit mundane. (No offense, my ongoing admiration for the work that is being done here.) Another idea: - different stages of abstractness. This may need some work. Does everyone remember Lyras' speech about abstract words? We could have words in categories: concept (totally abstract), derived or semi-objective, and object. C'Thia would be conceptual. There is nothing you can point at and say that it is 'C'Thia'. It has no practical relation with the physical world. The Vulcan Academy would IMO be semi-objective meaning there is a real set of buildings but when you say "The Vulcan Academy" you still draw on a variety of objects for defining what the Vulcan Academy is. A derived word could be a word like "seskahlna" (made up), meaning a 'priests' staff'. There is an actual stick or staff that would be objective but that's not all there is to it. 'Plant' or 'house' would be objective as you can point to a clear thing. When speaking of plants or houses in a more general way, you could go back to using the semi-objective pronoun, indicating you don't refer to a particular plant or house. This distinctions make sense in a language and culture where it is of great importance to make clear how your logical thinking precisely developed. In Terran languages it is often hard to put into sounds precisely and accurately what exactly went on in your mind. This is clearly not desirable. ---------- From: Rob Zook To: vulcan-linguistics*shikahr,com,inter,net Subject: Abstration and Epistemology particals (was Re: Gender in pronouns) Date: Wednesday, October 14, 1998 3:17 PM MDriest wrote: > > Another idea: > - different stages of abstractness. This may need some work. > > Does everyone remember Lyras' speech about abstract words? > We could have words in categories: concept (totally abstract), > derived or semi-objective, and object. This is definitely something I've been working on. I'd like to see a set of abstractor particles one could apply to words to distinguish it's level of abstraction, and a set of source particals which would refer to a level of confidence. I'd like to base the > C'Thia would be conceptual. There is nothing you can point at and > say that it is 'C'Thia'. It has no practical relation with the > physical world. I would not call that entirely accurate. C'Thia in our minds simply refers to a rather fuzzy set of ideas about Vulcan logical practices, theories and applications. That the set of fuzzy does not mean you can't point to practice X, practice Y, and practice Z and say that 70% of Vulcans would agree these practices exemplify the ideal of C'Thia. However, I would certainly agree that it seems very abstract in nature. There is no _one_ thing which the word refers to but there is a fuzzy set that the word refers to. Using fuzzy logic (which I only have a passing familiarity with unfortunately), a Vulcan could probably describe the nature of C'thia very precisely in a particular situation. > The Vulcan Academy would IMO be semi-objective meaning there is a > real set of buildings but when you say "The Vulcan Academy" you > still draw on a variety of objects for defining what the Vulcan > Academy is. And a set of abstractors would certainly help clarify how you mean the phrase "Vulcan Academy". > A derived word could be a word like "seskahlna" (made up), meaning a > 'priests' staff'. There is an actual stick or staff that would be > objective but that's not all there is to it. > > 'Plant' or 'house' would be objective as you can point to a clear > thing. A particular plant our house would have a specific reference. Like a Day Lilly, or Sarek's House, but not just the words "plant" or "house". > This distinctions make sense in a language and culture where it is > of great importance to make clear how your logical thinking > precisely developed. In Terran languages it is often hard to put > into sounds precisely and accurately what exactly went on in your > mind. This is clearly not desirable. Definitely, I agree. I think the "Structural Differential" of Korzybski gives us the best methodology of expressing these levels of abstraction. My copy of the book, _Science and Sanity_ where he describes it in detail I have packed away for the moment, but I will get a copy of it from the library tonight and attempt to describe it and it's use more precisely. In general, the Structural Differential refers to a specific model of the "structure" of various "levels" of abstraction and how they relate to each other. Some important levels: Event - The level beyond all sentient abstraction Object - The basic sensory experiential level (preverbal) Symbol - various levels of abstraction which involve words and concepts Sign - high level representations of the event level (i,e. scientific theories) Essentially the main relationships between these levels loops around. The Event level refers to those sources of energy which we suppose exist outside our bodies and minds which may output energy that impacts on our senses. We never really gain any direct contact with this level and only suppose it exists and describe it with abstractions on other levels. The object level refers to the direct objects of our experience. The "tree" I see, touch.,etc, for example. Symbol levels represent all the various ways I can abstract the experiential tree into words and pictures. Basically, all the stuff I can do to express my experience of the tree to another sentient. Sign levels represent very high level abstractions which have a high correlation of structural similarities to the Event level. Now this is a very basic description of something I read about quite a while ago. So any logical problems in it, may be due to my descriptive abilities and memory. I will try to reproduce the section from _Science and Sanity_ as soon as I can get my hands on a copy. Now, using the Structural Differential as a model we could have abstraction particals one can add to entity or action-state words which indicate their relative level of abstraction. Like, I could have an abstraction partical (which I'm just going to call an abstractor from now on) which refers to the object level (or a _set_ of sensory specific abstractors). So I could say something about the "seen-tree" as opposed to an "idea-tree" (symbol level), or "biological-tree" (sign level). Which would make certain things hard, if not nonsensical to say. Like what could a "seen-peace" refer to? Or a "smelled-justice" mean? It would clearly distinguish highly abstract words as not-directly experiential events, and keep them from being talked about and discussed as if they were "things". Also, we can use something which lojban calls evidentials, particles which express a relative degree of certainty. One could say with some precision the source, reliabiility - in brief the justification or source of knowledge for a statement. Some possible evidentials: direct experience operational instructions for the experience hearsay unspecified source For example we could say something like, "The 'operationally-known- electron' has a positive charge". Or "(the electron has a positive charge)-'known operationally' via this procedure..." depending on the emphesis we wish to make. In formal Vulcan I think both of these kinds of particles should be required for gramatical correctness. Although, by default I think that for a unqualified word, we could consider it as having an 'unspecified source' and existing at the 'symbol level'. A really simple way of describing these two sets of paticles, simple at least in philosophical terminology) as epsitological and ontologically relating particles (for the evidentials and abstractors, respectively). Now, to bring up something totally unrelated, I think Vulcan particles could be useful by themselves as words - perhaps in response to a question. So given that Vulcan is an agglutinative language perhaps we should create a "null" action/state or entity, that one can attach them to, instead of just letting them "hang out" there. I suggest this because in certain areas of speech like mathematics a null action/state or entity would also prove useful. So, for example, if someone asks a specific empistemological question like: "How did you know about the tree", one could respond with the visual sensory abstractor+the null word+any useful tense aspect particles and it would act as a very nice short hand for "I know it because I saw/am seeing/expect to see it". However, using a sensory abstractor in the future tense in response to an epistemological question seems rather suspect, and we might want to consider it ungrammatical. ---------- From: Saul Epstein To: vulcan-linguistics*shikahr,com,inter,net Subject: Re: Gender in pronouns Date: Wednesday, October 14, 1998 3:17 PM (Quotes MDriest: Wednesday, October 14, 1998 1:38 PM) > I think the first possibility would work better and I agree > with T'Pel. It is more precise. The chance that any Vulcan > would stoop to verbal abuse is quite small, my Lady, but the > the language is probably capable of it. "Abuse" may be too strong for what Vulcans are likely to pursue in this regard, but I can't see them being completely free of it. I seem to recall a scene in "Journey to Babel" in which Amb. Sarek indulged in some mildly insulting -- but highly logical -- criticism of someone with whom he disagreed. > There is another possibility, T'Pel already told us, we could > simply not sort for gender. We could make a distinction on > grounds of something else. I thought is was one of our goals > to create an alien language, so why not create something no > Terran language has? It is also one of our goals to build on the foundation already laid, to whatever extent possible. > Another idea: > - different stages of abstractness. This may need some work. Entity Classification is an important part of any language, and is often manifest within a language in different ways, essentially classifying kinds of classification. That the distinction "one or neither of two genders" should show up in pronoun structures is, to be sure, not especially alien. But, as T'Pel pointed out, neither is it especially Terran. There are probably languages that don't make formal distinctions of gender at all, and there are certainly some that don't do so in their pronouns. But there are many different kinds of disctinction that can be made, and many different ways to make them. A book I happen to be reading happens to describe Swahili as "frequently analyzed as having a total of nine different noun classes, each one requiring a distinct system of agreement prefixes attached to other words in the sentence," in a section dealing with some of the problems of accounting for features like gender in grammatical analysis. Class can be manifest in restrictions concerning what kinds of modifiers can be applied to an entity, what kinds of actions entities are permitted to commit or be subject to, etc., in addition to simple tagging with affixes. Rob has mentioned frequently a desire to formally classify different levels of abstraction in Vulcan, and I think it's a great idea. We can replace the original pronoun-expressed distinction with such, or find some other way to express it. I should also point out that, as originally formulated, ZC has a basic sentient-nonsentient distinction, but the manifestation of that distinction is never described. Unless it is implied by the presence of "it" among the pronouns. All that's said is that it doesn't correspond to carbon-noncarbon. So I think it would make a lot of sense if the most commonly used pronouns only distinguished sentient from non, while a speaker could have the option of specifying gender if it were pertinent to her statement. ---------- From: Saul Epstein To: vulcan-linguistics*shikahr,com,inter,net Subject: Re: Gender in Pronouns Date: Thursday, October 15, 1998 8:07 PM I've encountered a new wrinkle. In the original ZC grammar, the following appears next to the "it" pronouns, in the column otherwise occupied by honorifics. "it" can have honorific form when applied to 'sexless' sentient phenomena This makes it pretty clear that pronouns based on were meant to be only neuter, but either sentient or not. This could be used to argue in favor of the second of my two solutions (or even to argue that there isn't a problem). At the same time, I think it's worth making the sentient-nonsentient distinction at least as significant as the masculine-feminine-neither distinction. It seems likely to me that Vulcans would consider sentient entities, with or without gender, to have more in common than either has with non-sentient entities (presumably always without gender). I guess my opinion is now perfectly balanced between what I'd prefer from a philosophical point of view and my desire to preserve the foundation. I encourage anyone who has an opinion on the subject to express it. (Of course, I'd always like that, but in this case I seem to be more than usually dependent on it.) Meanwhile I may start work on the next section. ;-) ---------- End Part 6 -- 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