577
edits
Balog: Difference between revisions
m
→Verbs
m (→Syntax) |
m (→Verbs) |
||
| Line 109: | Line 109: | ||
|} | |} | ||
It could be argued that a non-syntactic division of the category of verbs into classes of true verbs, nouns, adjectives etc., could be made on the basis of semantics. For example, semanticists may argue that the verb '''magaz''' (fall over) is semantically a ''true verb'' as it describes "an action/state", whereas the verb '''dauz''' (be a tree) is semantically a ''noun'' because it describes "an entity". This semantic approach to the creation of additional categories that are not supported by syntactic analysis will, however, inevitably cause disagreements as semantic categories have fuzzy edges. A verb such as '''lisim''' could equally well regarded as a noun meaning "(an) annoyance" or "nuisance" or as a true verb meaning "annoy" or "bother". The question as to whether ''lisim'' refers to an entity or to an action/state can be answered with "Both!" '''Lisim''' refers to the action and the agent of that action. Likewise, the verb'''vaŋ''' could be argued to be a true verb meaning ''hunt'' (an action) or a noun meaning "hunter" (an entity or that performs the action). Even in more apparently clear-cut cases, although the verb '''magaz''' "fall over", which patently seems to describe an action, is most conveniently translated into English as a verb, it also describes an ''entity that falls over'' (a "faller-over"). Likewise, the verb '''dauz''' describes an entity, a "tree", yet it also describes the action/state of '''being a tree'''. Balog simply makes no syntactic or lexical distinction between performing an action or being the agent of such an action. | It could be argued that a non-syntactic division of the category of verbs into classes of true verbs, nouns, adjectives etc., could be made on the basis of semantics. For example, semanticists may argue that the verb '''magaz''' (fall over) is semantically a ''true verb'' as it describes "an action/state", whereas the verb '''dauz''' (be a tree) is semantically a ''noun'' because it describes "an entity". This semantic approach to the creation of additional categories that are not supported by syntactic analysis will, however, inevitably cause disagreements as semantic categories have fuzzy edges. A verb such as '''lisim''' could equally well regarded as a noun meaning "(an) annoyance" or "nuisance" or as a true verb meaning "annoy" or "bother". The question as to whether ''lisim'' refers to an entity or to an action/state can be answered with "Both!" '''Lisim''' refers to the action and the agent of that action. Likewise, the verb '''vaŋ''' could be argued to be a true verb meaning ''hunt'' (an action) or a noun meaning "hunter" (an entity or that performs the action). Even in more apparently clear-cut cases, although the verb '''magaz''' "fall over", which patently seems to describe an action, is most conveniently translated into English as a verb, it also describes an ''entity that falls over'' (a "faller-over"). Likewise, the verb '''dauz''' describes an entity, a "tree", yet it also describes the action/state of '''being a tree'''. Balog simply makes no syntactic or lexical distinction between performing an action or being the agent of such an action. | ||
In many cases, the difference between what semanticists would regard as true verbs or nouns depends on the the intrinsic temporal aspect or ''Aktionsart'' of the word's definition. Words describing relatively long-lasting and static attributes of an entity, such as '''dauz''' "be a tree" or '''ŋaž''' "be tall" are less likely to be perceived by semanticists as true verbs and also less likely to be translatable by verbs alone in languages with a noun-verb distinction. Dynamic states or actions involving movement or change, especially transient or momentane descriptions of an entity that the entity may quickly pass through, are more likely to be regarded as intrinsically "verb like" and, when translated into English, may frequently have awkward, clunky nominal translations involving relative clauses headed by "entity that", "one who" or "that which". | In many cases, the difference between what semanticists would regard as true verbs or nouns depends on the the intrinsic temporal aspect or ''Aktionsart'' of the word's definition. Words describing relatively long-lasting and static attributes of an entity, such as '''dauz''' "be a tree" or '''ŋaž''' "be tall" are less likely to be perceived by semanticists as true verbs and also less likely to be translatable by verbs alone in languages with a noun-verb distinction. Dynamic states or actions involving movement or change, especially transient or momentane descriptions of an entity that the entity may quickly pass through, are more likely to be regarded as intrinsically "verb like" and, when translated into English, may frequently have awkward, clunky nominal translations involving relative clauses headed by "entity that", "one who" or "that which". | ||