I've been thinking about formal lexical ontology again lately, especially as it relates to nominal gender systems and as it relates to the internal organization of lexical resources describing conlangs. I think in particular that an ontograph (a graph produced by a student of ontology should not itself be called an ontology) of English nominal lexical roots would be a good thing to have, firstly, as a starting point both for designing new languages and for organizing their presentation once designed, and secondly, for my peace of mind, in that it would help me get some of my ontological work off of my hard drive and into the world in a polished state.
There are far fewer nominal roots than nouns in English; if I can focus my efforts on the roots, then I'll have something that feels complete much sooner. Also, a hierarchically organized list of English nominal roots, while the English roots might not individually translate to lexical roots in other languages, would make for a handy little checklist which I could follow to make sure that any new language I devise can roughly span the same semantic space as English in similar detail. Though of course I do not intend to establish a 1-to-1 correspondence between English roots and Conlang roots. That would just be crazy boring.
What I have below is not a set of nominal roots; it's a set of meanings for a wide array of derivational and inflectional affixes. I can feel comfortable focusing my future ontological / ontographic efforts on lexical roots because I have this list. I'll also eventually have to systematically treat verbal roots and adjectival roots, since nouns can be derived from those, and I'm fine with that. So here is a powerful set of tools for expanding lexical roots into a vocabulary. By presenting them, I wash my hands of the need to categorize nominal vocabulary generally. There are a couple of repetitions in the list, I'm sure, but mostly these are distinct and mostly you will find them familiar to your language (unless your language is isolating) or at least you will find them plausible features of other languages. I'm mostly focusing on derivational affixes here, and mostly avoiding talking about affixes that mark morphosyntactic case or adpositional case, or verbal tense, aspect, mood, or evidentiality, or nominal animacy, countability, definiteness, gender, et cetera. Maybe I should remove the few inflectional affix meanings that do show up, but the difference between inflection and derivation often feels a little arbitrary to me. If linguists called pluralization derivational rather than inflectional, I wouldn't have any grounds on which to contest them. But for now, starting with affixes that could make a new adjective out of a base $adjective:
* (adj, adj): being barely $adjective.
* (adj, adj): currently $adjective.
* (adj, adj): formerly $adjective.
* (adj, adj): frequently $adjective.
* (adj, adj): never having been $adjective.
* (adj, adj): newly $adjective.
* (adj, adj): not $adjective.
* (adj, adj): prospectively $adjective.
* (adj, adj): somewhat $adjective.
* (adj, adj): very $adjective.
* (adj, adv): done in an $adjective manner.
* (adj, n): the dimension of $adjective ("sad -> sadness", "strong -> strength") or the value of the $adjective quality scale as it describes a thing (its $adjective-ness) ("his level of sad-ness", "her degree of jealous-y", "its considerable wisdom").
* (adj, n): thing that is $adjective.
* (adj, v): to be $adjective.
* (adj, v): to become $adjective.
* (adj, v): to become more $adjective.
* (adj, v): to frequently be $adjective.
* (adj, v): to make something be $adjective.
* (adj, v): to make something be more $adjective.
* (n, adj): able to make $noun.
* (n, adj): affected by the presence of $noun.
* (n, adj): appearing in shape like a $noun.
* (n, adj): avoiding $noun.
* (n, adj): capable of possessing quality $noun. "truth-apt"
* (n, adj): causing a state of $noun.
* (n, adj): characteristic of the performance of $noun.
* (n, adj): composed of $noun.
* (n, adj): designed to be performed by $noun.
* (n, adj): done for the purpose of making or giving or instilling $noun.
* (n, adj): done with concern for $noun.
* (n, adj): existing after the process or event of $noun.
* (n, adj): feeling to the touch like $noun.
* (n, adj): found near or in conjunction with $noun.
* (n, adj): habitually displaying the property $noun.
* (n, adj): habitually located in or at $noun.
* (n, adj): having a similar role in existence as $noun.
* (n, adj): having lots of $noun.
* (n, adj): having quality or property or part $noun.
* (n, adj): having the size or arity or cardinality of $noun, where $noun is usually a number when applied to a group or set. "palm-sized", "binary", "solitary"
* (n, adj): having some $noun.
* (n, adj): having the characteristics of $noun.
* (n, adj): having the size of $noun.
* (n, adj): lacking $noun or having little $noun or few $noun-s.
* (n, adj): laden with $noun or $noun-s.
* (n, adj): made for use by $noun.
* (n, adj): made of $noun.
* (n, adj): occurring with $noun.
* (n, adj): of a sort that acts or operates through the use of $noun.
* (n, adj): of a sort that is part of or contained within $noun.
* (n, adj): of a sort which is $noun.
* (n, adj): of a sort which is made of or filled with $noun.
* (n, adj): of a sort which is used by $noun.
* (n, adj): of a sort which produces $noun. "pyrogenic"
* (n, adj): originating from $noun.
* (n, adj): pertaining to $noun.
* (n, adj): possessing quality $noun.
* (n, adj): produced by or produced in $noun.
* (n, adj): resembling $noun.
* (n, adj): seeking $noun.
* (n, adj): similar in behavior to $noun.
* (n, adj): similar in form or appearance to a $noun.
* (n, adj): smelling like $noun.
* (n, adj): sounding like $noun.
* (n, adj): suitable for use with $noun. "sea-worthy"
* (n, adj): tasting like $noun.
* (n, adj): weighing like $noun.
* (n, adv): done in the direction of $noun.
* (n, adv): done in the manner of performance of a $noun.
* (n, n): a collection or mass of $noun.
* (n, n): big $noun.
* (n, n): disease affecting $noun.
* (n, n): disease caused by interaction with $noun.
* (n, n): large $noun.
* (n, n): multiple $noun-s.
* (n, n): object or material produced by changing $noun.
* (n, n): occupant of $noun.
* (n, n): one who habitually makes $noun.
* (n, n): one who is habitually in $noun.
* (n, n): one who is skilled at process or activity $noun . "thought-general", "rap-god".
* (n, n): one who keeps or collects or monitors $noun. "secretary", "rockhound"
* (n, n): one who studies $noun.
* (n, n): one who vocationally makes $noun.
* (n, n): one whose philosophy significantly involves $noun.
* (n, n): participant of event or state or process $noun.
* (n, n): person who works with $noun professionally.
* (n, n): place with lots of $noun-s.
* (n, n): small $noun.
* (n, n): terrible $noun.
* (n, n): the area where $noun moves, exists, operates, or applies.
* (n, n): the art or practice of doing activity $noun well.
* (n, n): the science or set of publicly verifiable facts known of the subject $noun.
* (n, n): the standard of moral behavior associated with performing the role of $noun. "citizenship", "sportsmanship".
* (n, n): the study of $noun.
* (n, n): the thing habitually produced by a $noun.
* (n, n): the time period when something is in the $noun phase. "boyhood"
* (n, n): theory of subject $noun.
* (n, n): thing which gains or receives $noun in a process.
* (n, n): wonderful $noun.
* (n, v): to add $noun to something. "contextualize", "be-glitter".
* (n, v): to attribute quality $noun to something.
* (n, v): to be a $noun.
* (n, v): to causally attribute event $noun to the influence of something.
* (n, v): to cause something to become $noun.
* (n, v): to cause something to have $noun.
* (n, v): to create $noun.
* (n, v): to create more $noun.
* (n, v): to do the action normally done by a $noun.
* (n, v): to do the action normally done to a $noun.
* (n, v): to do the action normally done using a $noun.
* (n, v): to experience the process or state or event of $noun.
* (n, v): to have a $noun.
* (n, v): to make something into $noun.
* (n, v): to modify something to make it better for $noun. "baby-proof", "individualize"
* (n, v): to not have $noun.
* (n, v): to organize or configure something into being a $noun.
* (n, v): to perceive or experience a sudden change in $noun.
* (n, v): to perform the act characteristic of agent $noun.
* (n, v): to produce $noun.
* (n, v): to seek $noun.
* (n, v): to use $noun on something with contact.
* (n, v): to use $noun on something without contact.
* (v, adj): able to be $verb-ed.
* (v, adj): allowing one to $verb.
* (v, adj): being good at $verb-ing.
* (v, adj): can be achieved by $verb-ing.
* (v, adj): habitually $verb-ing.
* (v, adj): having been marked for use for $verb-ing. "the reckoning-for day"
* (v, adj): in the process of $verb-ing.
* (v, adj): not able to be $verb-ed.
* (v, adj): prone to $verb. tending to $verb.
* (v, adj): serving to $verb. "binding" in "binding resolution"
* (v, adj): suited for $verb-ing. "cook-worthy", "public-speaking-fit"
* (v, adj): that which is habitually $verb-ed.
* (v, adj): used for $verb-ing.
* (v, adj): used of a thing which participates by reference in a cognitive process of $verb-ing. "need -> necessary", "imagine -> imaginary"
* (v, adv): after doing $verb.
* (v, adv): before doing $verb.
* (v, adv): for the purpose of $verb.
* (v, adv): while doing $verb.
* (v, n): instance of achievement of punctual $verb.
* (v, n): instance of performing a temporally extended $verb.
* (v, n): one who habitually $verb-s.
* (v, n): person who does $verb in company with someone else.
* (v, n): person who does $verb.
* (v, n): person who habitually does $verb. "victor"
* (v, n): person who vocationally does $verb. "baker"
* (v, n): place from which one $verb-s.
* (v, n): place where $verb is typically done.
* (v, n): product or consequence of $verb.
* (v, n): the action or process of $verb.
* (v, n): the art or method of doing $verb well.
* (v, n): the event of $verb.
* (v, n): the process of $verb.
* (v, n): the result of $verb.
* (v, n): the state of having been $verb-ed.
* (v, n): the state of undergoing $verb-ing.
* (v, n): the thing produced by $verb-ing.
* (v, n): the thing that does $verb.
* (v, n): the thing to which $verb is typically done.
* (v, n): the thing used for $verb-ing.
* (v, n): the thing which at least once $verb-ed.
* (v, n): the thing which formerly habitually $verb-ed.
* (v, n): the thing which habitually $verb-s.
* (v, n): the thing which is used in $verb-ing.
* (v, n): the thing which temporarily $verb-s.
* (v, n): the thing, in its intermediate state, which is being modified by $verb-ing.
* (v, n): the time when $verb happens or is typically done.
* (v, v): to $verb again.
* (v, v): to $verb more than something else $verb-s.
* (v, v): to almost $verb.
* (v, v): to almost not $verb.
* (v, v): to cause a patient to undergo intransitive $verb.
* (v, v): to cause the reverse of the effects of $verb-ing.
* (v, v): to go somewhere in order to $verb.
* (v, v): to go somewhere in order to avoid $verb-ing.
You may notice that there aren't very many adverbs in the mix. I notice that too. I don't know why adverbs seem so much less important and less diverse than adjectives. Maybe that's something to change for a conlang. More adverbs. Or not. There are more interesting things to focus on.
Evidentiality And Supposability
Today I'm thinking about markers of evidentiality in grammar. I think I like a system that marks five sources of evidence: perceptive, deductive, inductive, quotative, and intuitive. Also, I like simultaneously distinguishing whether the speaker finds the statement informed by one of those sources to be plausible or implausible.
For clarity, here are some corresponding adverbs of evidentiality for the system I like:
Perceptive: noticeably, manifestly
Weak perceptive: seemingly
Deductive: logically
Weak deductive: theoretically, speculatively, hypothetically
Inductive: reasonably
Weak inductive: presumably
Quotative: reportedly
Weak quotative: allegedly, anecdotally
Intuitive: innately, subconsciously,
Weak intuitive: unconsciously, oneirically, allegorically, fictionally, head-canonically
I also tried to work out where supernatural evidential adverbs would fall among these evidential sources for people in universes with gods. Perhaps the adverb "prophetically" would be perceptive, "inspired divinely" would be intuitive, "kabbalistically" would be deductive, "theologically" would be inductive, and "esoterically" would be quotative. I dunno; for me, they're all mistaken identifications of weak intuition.
The adverb "supposedly" is an interesting case. I'd like to use it to name weak inferential evidentiality ("we could suppose"), but in common practice, it's used as a weak quotative ("I've heard but don't strongly believe"). I don't think "supposedly" is even used to indicate that the reported claim came from people who were supposing; the word just has a weird usage that is deviating from its root, with no cognitive action of supposition indicated.
However! I think the non-standard word "supposably" *does* primarily have the first meaning, "could be supposed". It marks a different evidentiality! Whoever wrote the wiktionary page for "supposably" also seems to agree with me. It would be nice if we all could admit that "supposably" is its own word with a different meaning and stop telling people to use "supposedly" when they're not informing us of a dubitative quotation. But if not, "presumably" is still a fine adverb for the weak inferential.
For clarity, here are some corresponding adverbs of evidentiality for the system I like:
Perceptive: noticeably, manifestly
Weak perceptive: seemingly
Deductive: logically
Weak deductive: theoretically, speculatively, hypothetically
Inductive: reasonably
Weak inductive: presumably
Quotative: reportedly
Weak quotative: allegedly, anecdotally
Intuitive: innately, subconsciously,
Weak intuitive: unconsciously, oneirically, allegorically, fictionally, head-canonically
I also tried to work out where supernatural evidential adverbs would fall among these evidential sources for people in universes with gods. Perhaps the adverb "prophetically" would be perceptive, "inspired divinely" would be intuitive, "kabbalistically" would be deductive, "theologically" would be inductive, and "esoterically" would be quotative. I dunno; for me, they're all mistaken identifications of weak intuition.
The adverb "supposedly" is an interesting case. I'd like to use it to name weak inferential evidentiality ("we could suppose"), but in common practice, it's used as a weak quotative ("I've heard but don't strongly believe"). I don't think "supposedly" is even used to indicate that the reported claim came from people who were supposing; the word just has a weird usage that is deviating from its root, with no cognitive action of supposition indicated.
However! I think the non-standard word "supposably" *does* primarily have the first meaning, "could be supposed". It marks a different evidentiality! Whoever wrote the wiktionary page for "supposably" also seems to agree with me. It would be nice if we all could admit that "supposably" is its own word with a different meaning and stop telling people to use "supposedly" when they're not informing us of a dubitative quotation. But if not, "presumably" is still a fine adverb for the weak inferential.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)