70
edits
User:Aydın Baykara: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 371: | Line 371: | ||
!'''ABCL Suffix Level 1'''||||'''Example: ABCL noun'''||'''English Suffix'''||'''Some English Nouns as Samples '' | !'''ABCL Suffix Level 1'''||||'''Example: ABCL noun'''||'''English Suffix'''||'''Some English Nouns as Samples '' | ||
|- | |- | ||
|'''_eş-x''|| || yun.eş(!), den.eş.x(!)||to ... (infinite)/!||to run, to eat / /run!, eat-don't eat!) | |'''_eş-x''|| || yun.eş(!), den.eş.x(!)||to ... (infinite)/!||to run, to eat / /'''run!, eat-don't eat!)'' | ||
|} | |} | ||
=== | === Verb Transformation in ABCL === | ||
Many verbs in English are ambitransitive (ergative-anticausative) (transitive and intransitive, depending on the context) such as burn, sink, read, break etc. where the separation is provided either by their context (receiving an object) or by the special prepositions/particles. For the translation from English to ABCL, ABCL would need two different root verbs for each type of the meaning in order to overcome the ambiguity. Therefore, I have tried to minimize and to simplify this duality. The verbs defined in lexicon are either inherently intransitive (among others linking verbs including all copula verbs) as appear, be, become, feel, get, grow, keep, look, seem, sound, smell, stay, turn etc.) i.e. they cannot take object or inherently transitive, i.e. they take object anyway. Verbs such as “to boil” is considered in ABCL as inherently intransitive because boiling is an inherently specific characteristic of fluids. Equivalent of any ambitransitive English verb is defined in ABCL always intrinsically as transitive (e.g. the verb “sink=yes” is in ABCL transitive only even though in English it may have the meanings such as: the boat sank (intransitive) and the storm has sunk the bot (transitive)). Intransitive includes also reflexive and reciprocal. (Most of the natural languages have more transitive verbs than intransitive, e.g. English and German about 60%, therefore I have chosen transitive sinse as basic in case of the duality.) | |||
Because there are too many ambitransitive verbs, which can be transformed by reflexion in to (semi-) intransitive verbs, ABCL introduced the reflexive suffix “_m” for this purpose. (Example: look at (vt) vs look nice (vi)- bul.# vs bul.#.m) With this approach the problem of the ambitransitive verbs would be overcome in ABCL. Other way around to make out of an intransitive verb a transitive one (ergative) ABCL defined the suffix “_t” and for the reciprocal the suffix “_y”. | |||
English uses also different word or auxiliary to make out of an inherently intransitive verb a transitive verb (like “die-kill”, “sleep- get/make… sleep”) or opposite. Contrary to ABCL, it creates from transitive verb intransitive reflexive verbs by using reflexive pronouns (protect-protect oneself). | English uses also different word or auxiliary to make out of an inherently intransitive verb a transitive verb (like “die-kill”, “sleep- get/make… sleep”) or opposite. Contrary to ABCL, it creates from transitive verb intransitive reflexive verbs by using reflexive pronouns (protect-protect oneself). | ||
The verb “bab” is introduced as ABCL equivalent of English verb “to be”, it will be utilized however in copula mood as “zero copula”. For example, “it is beautiful” translates into ABCL (for the sake of simplicity) not as “u babe ebe” but as “u ebe” or simpler as “ebe” if the context permits it. | |||
Other suffixes for further verbal forms are listed in the table under the title: Modal Verbs, Inflexions and Modus in ABCL further below. | Other suffixes for further verbal forms are listed in the table under the title: Modal Verbs, Inflexions and Modus in ABCL further below. | ||