577
edits
Balog: Difference between revisions
m
→Bases
m (→Bases) |
m (→Bases) |
||
| Line 88: | Line 88: | ||
==Morphology== | ==Morphology== | ||
===Bases=== | ===Bases=== | ||
Bases are the equivalent of verb, nouns, adjectives and pronouns in other languages. It is impossible to assign bases to separate discrete classes of nouns, verbs etc. using syntax or morphology alone. With few exceptions, each base exhibits complete bidirectional subject-predicate flexibility, meaning they can be used in predicates ("verbally") or in subjects ("nominally") without any irregular changes | Bases are the equivalent of verb, nouns, adjectives and pronouns in other languages. It is impossible to assign bases to separate discrete classes of nouns, verbs etc. using syntax or morphology alone. With few exceptions, each base exhibits complete bidirectional subject-predicate flexibility, meaning they can be used in predicates ("verbally") or in subjects ("nominally") without any irregular changes in form or meaning. | ||
This | This situation can distinguished from the extensive zero-derivation, such as that employed by English, whereby verbs and nouns can, with a fair degree of flexibility, change category. Zero derivation results in identical verbs and nouns whose meanings relate to one another in somewhat unpredictable ways. For instance, although, by definition, a '''spy''' ''spies'' and a '''stray''' ''strays'', it cannot be said that, by definition, a '''fish''' ''fishes'' or '''burger''' ''burgers''. A '''tree''' ''grows'', but there is nothing called a '''grow''' that can be said to ''tree''. The verbal and nominal meanings formed by zero-derivation must therefore be regarded as separate (although related) lexical entities in their own right. | ||
By contrast, the meaning of Balog bases does not change depending on their syntactic position within a clause. Each base may be given a nominal or a verbal translation into English, but the relationship between them is consistent. If given a nominal translation, the verbal translation is simply "be [noun]". If given a verbal translation, the nominal translation is simply the agent noun of it or, more specifically, "entity that [verb]s", "one who [verbs]", "that which [verbs]", "those that [verb]" etc. | By contrast, the meaning of Balog bases does not change depending on their syntactic position within a clause. Each base may be given a nominal or a verbal translation into English, but the relationship between them is consistent. If given a nominal translation, the verbal translation is simply "be [noun]". If given a verbal translation, the nominal translation is simply the agent noun of it or, more specifically, "entity that [verb]s", "one who [verbs]", "that which [verbs]", "those that [verb]" etc. | ||
| Line 109: | Line 109: | ||
|} | |} | ||
It could be argued that a non-syntactic distinction could be made on the basis of semantics. For example, it could be argued that the base '''magaz''' (fall over) is intrinsically "verb-like" as it describes "an action/state", whereas the base '''dauz''' (be a tree) is intrinsically "noun-like" 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 word such as '''lisim''' could equally well regarded as a noun meaning "(an) annoyance" or "nuisance" or as a 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 base '''vaŋ''' could be argued to be a 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 base '''magaz''' "fall over", which is "clearly" an action is most conveniently translated into English as a verb, it also describes an ''entity that falls over'' (a "faller-over"). Likewise, the base '''dauz''' describes an entity, a "tree", it also describes the action/state of '''being a tree'''. | |||
It could be argued that a non-syntactic distinction could be made on the basis of semantics. For example, it could be argued that the base '''magaz''' | |||
In many cases, the difference between what would frequently be regarded as nominal or verbal meaning 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 thought of as semantically "verb-like" and therefore frequently use "be" to achieve verbal translations in English; 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 may have awkward, clunky nominal translations into English involving relative clauses headed by "entity that", "one who" or "that which". | In many cases, the difference between what would frequently be regarded as nominal or verbal meaning 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 thought of as semantically "verb-like" and therefore frequently use "be" to achieve verbal translations in English; 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 may have awkward, clunky nominal translations into English involving relative clauses headed by "entity that", "one who" or "that which". | ||