From d2da853b9eb430679e7238b93996f8e4651a39c1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: uakci Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2020 04:55:30 +0100 Subject: fixed encoding --- 2004-en-alt/ithkuil-ch3-basic-morphology.html | 296 +++++++++++++------------- 1 file changed, 148 insertions(+), 148 deletions(-) mode change 100755 => 100644 2004-en-alt/ithkuil-ch3-basic-morphology.html (limited to '2004-en-alt/ithkuil-ch3-basic-morphology.html') diff --git a/2004-en-alt/ithkuil-ch3-basic-morphology.html b/2004-en-alt/ithkuil-ch3-basic-morphology.html old mode 100755 new mode 100644 index 3a2e8c7..e355917 --- a/2004-en-alt/ithkuil-ch3-basic-morphology.html +++ b/2004-en-alt/ithkuil-ch3-basic-morphology.html @@ -101,8 +101,8 @@ cognitively distinct from one another, but rather as complementary manifestations of ideas existing in a common underlying semantic continuum whose components are space and time. The equivalents to nouns and verbs in other languages are - merely “reified” (or nominalized) and “activized” (or - verbalized) derivatives of semantic formatives. Nevertheless, for simplicity’s + merely “reified” (or nominalized) and “activized” (or + verbalized) derivatives of semantic formatives. Nevertheless, for simplicity’s sake, we will refer to nominal formatives as nouns and verbal formatives as verbs when discussing their morphology.

All Ithkuil formatives, whether functioning as nouns or verbs, @@ -138,20 +138,20 @@ composition, separability, compartmentalization, physical similarity or componential structure. This is best explained and illustrated by means of analogies to certain English sets of words.

-

Consider the English word ‘tree.’ In English, a +

Consider the English word ‘tree.’ In English, a single tree may stand alone out of context, or it may be part of a group of trees. Such a group of trees may simply be two or more trees considered as a plural category based on mere number alone, e.g., two, three, or twenty trees. However, it is the nature of trees to exist in more contextually relevant groupings than merely numerical ones. For example, the trees may be of like species as - in a ‘grove’ of trees. The grouping may be an assortment of different - kinds of trees as in a ‘forest’ or occur in patternless disarray - such as a ‘jungle.’

-

As another example, we can examine the English word ‘person.’ - While persons may occur in simple numerical groupings such as ‘a (single) - person’ or ‘three persons’ it is more common to find persons + in a ‘grove’ of trees. The grouping may be an assortment of different + kinds of trees as in a ‘forest’ or occur in patternless disarray + such as a ‘jungle.’

+

As another example, we can examine the English word ‘person.’ + While persons may occur in simple numerical groupings such as ‘a (single) + person’ or ‘three persons’ it is more common to find persons (i.e., people) referred to by words which indicate various groupings such as - ‘group,’ ‘gathering,’ ‘crowd,’ etc.

+ ‘group,’ ‘gathering,’ ‘crowd,’ etc.

Segmentation and amalgamated componential structure are further configurative principles which distinguish related words in English. The relationships between car versus convoy, hanger versus rack, @@ -162,18 +162,18 @@

Another type of contextual grouping of nouns occurs in binary sets, particularly in regard to body parts. These binary sets can comprise two identical referents as in a pair of eyes, however they are more often - opposed or “mirror-image” (i.e., complementary) sets as in limbs, + opposed or “mirror-image” (i.e., complementary) sets as in limbs, ears, hands, wings, etc.

In Ithkuil, the semantic distinctions implied by the above examples as they relate to varying assortments of trees or persons would be - accomplished by inflecting the word-stem for ‘tree’ or ‘person’ + accomplished by inflecting the word-stem for ‘tree’ or ‘person’ into one of nine configurations. Additional semantic distinctions on the basis of purpose or function between individual members of a set could then be made by means of Affiliation (see Section 3.2 below) and by - the use of specific affixes. For example, once the words for ‘forest’ - or ‘crowd’ were derived from ‘tree’ and ‘person’ - via Configuration, the Ithkuil words for ‘orchard,’ ‘copse,’ - ‘team’ or ‘mob’ could easily be derived via affiliation + the use of specific affixes. For example, once the words for ‘forest’ + or ‘crowd’ were derived from ‘tree’ and ‘person’ + via Configuration, the Ithkuil words for ‘orchard,’ ‘copse,’ + ‘team’ or ‘mob’ could easily be derived via affiliation and affixes. (Such derivations into new words using affixes are explored in detail in Chapter 7: Using Affixes.)

@@ -217,14 +217,14 @@

The DUPLEX configuration is marked by Grade 2 mutation of the C1 radical consonant and indicates - a related binary set. While it often refers to body parts, e.g., one’s + a related binary set. While it often refers to body parts, e.g., one’s eyes, ears, lungs, wings, etc., it can also be used to describe any set of two identical or complementary objects or entities, e.g., a matched pair of vases, a two-volume set, a set of bookends, mutual opponents. Thus, the Ithkuil word for spouse inflected for the DUPLEX configuration would translate as a man and wife or a married couple.

One context in which the DUPLEX appears - for both nouns and verbs is with events which contain two complementary “halves” + for both nouns and verbs is with events which contain two complementary “halves” exemplified by English words such as bounce, flash, arc, wag, swing, switch, breathe/respiration, indeed, any concept which involves a dual-state notion of up/down, to/fro, back/forth, @@ -233,7 +233,7 @@ For example the word for hammer blow inflected for the UNIPLEX would signify the singular impact of the hammer, whereas the same word inflected for the DUPLEX signifies a single down-then-up cycle of - the swing of the hammer, the two complementary “halves” of the action + the swing of the hammer, the two complementary “halves” of the action being divided by the impact.


@@ -262,7 +262,7 @@ or object inflected for the DISCRETE configuration. Note that the distinction between a spatially configured set versus a temporally (i.e., iterative) configured set would be made by use of an additional affix, - -V1šk, + -V1ĆĄk, specifying which spacetime axis is implied. This affix is analyzed in Sec. 7.7.13.

For verbs, the DISCRETE signifies a single @@ -428,7 +428,7 @@ by Grade 9 mutation of the C1 radical consonant and is the most difficult to explain, as there is no Western linguistic equivalent. The MULTIFORM serves to identify the noun as an individual - member of a “fuzzy” set. A fuzzy set is a term which originates + member of a “fuzzy” set. A fuzzy set is a term which originates in non-traditional logic, describing a set whose individual members do not all share the same set-defining attributes to the same degree, i.e., while there may be one or more archetypical members of the set which display the defining @@ -436,12 +436,12 @@ vary from this archetypical norm by a wide range of degrees, whether in physical resemblance, degree of cohesion or both. Indeed, some members of the set may display very little resemblance to the archetype and be closer to the archetype - of a different fuzzy set, i.e., fuzzy sets allow for the idea of “gradient - overlap” between members of differing sets.

+ of a different fuzzy set, i.e., fuzzy sets allow for the idea of “gradient + overlap” between members of differing sets.

It is difficult to accurately translate into English without resorting to paraphrase the sorts of concepts that Ithkuil easily expresses using the MULTIFORM. For example, the Ithkuil word for - ‘tree’ inflected for the MULTIFORM configuration + ‘tree’ inflected for the MULTIFORM configuration would mean something like a group of what appear to be trees, or better yet, a group of tree-like objects (i.e., some being trees, and others seeming less like trees). Essentially, any set of entities whose similarity @@ -519,7 +519,7 @@ normally applied to nouns in the UNIPLEX configuration when spoken of in a neutral way, since a noun in the UNIPLEX specifies one single entity without reference to a set, therefore the concept - of “shared” function would be inapplicable. Examples: a man, + of “shared” function would be inapplicable. Examples: a man, a door, a sensation of heat, a leaf. With verbs, the CONSOLIDATIVE would imply that the act, state, or event is occurring naturally, or is neutral as to purpose or design.

@@ -550,12 +550,12 @@ orchard.

The ASSOCIATIVE affiliation can also be used with nouns in the UNIPLEX configuration to signify - a sense of unity amongst one’s characteristics, purposes, thoughts, etc. + a sense of unity amongst one’s characteristics, purposes, thoughts, etc. For example, the word person inflected for the UNIPLEX and ASSOCIATIVE would translate as a single-minded person. Even nouns such as rock, tree or work of art could be inflected this way, subjectively translatable as a well-formed - rock, a tree with integrity, a “balanced” work of art.

+ rock, a tree with integrity, a “balanced” work of art.

With verbs, the ASSOCIATIVE signifies that the act, state or event is by design or with specific purpose. The CONSOLIDATIVE versus ASSOCIATIVE distinction could be used, for example, @@ -586,7 +586,7 @@ a rag-tag group, a dysfunctional couple, a cacophony of notes, of a mess of books, a collection in disarray. It operates with nouns in the UNIPLEX to render meanings such as a man at odds with himself, an ill-formed rock, - a chaotic piece of art, a “lefthand-righthand” situation.

+ a chaotic piece of art, a “lefthand-righthand” situation.

With verbs, the VARIATIVE indicates an act, state, or event that occurs for more than one reason or purpose, and that those reasons or purposes are more or less unrelated. This sense can probably @@ -615,16 +615,16 @@

The COALESCENT affiliation indicates that the members of a configurational set share in a complementary relationship with respect to their individual functions, states, purposes, benefits, etc. - This means that, while each member’s function is distinct from those of + This means that, while each member’s function is distinct from those of other members, each serves in furtherance of some greater unified role. For example, the Ithkuil word translating English toolset would be the word for tool in the AGGREGATIVE configuration - (due to each tool’s distinct physical appearance) and the COALESCENT + (due to each tool’s distinct physical appearance) and the COALESCENT affiliation to indicate that each tool has a distinct but complementary function in furtherance of enabling construction or repair activities. Another example would be the Ithkuil word for finger inflected for the SEGMENTATIVE configuration and the COALESCENT affiliation, translatable - as the fingers on one’s hand (note the use of the SEGMENTATIVE + as the fingers on one’s hand (note the use of the SEGMENTATIVE to imply the physical connection between each finger via the hand). A further example would be using the COALESCENT with the word for (piece of) food to signify a well-balanced meal.

@@ -632,10 +632,10 @@ often in conjunction with the DUPLEX configuration since binary sets tend to be complementary. It is used, for example, to signify symmetrical binary sets such as body parts, generally indicating a lefthand/righthand mirror-image - distinction, e.g., one’s ears, one’s hands, a pair of wings. + distinction, e.g., one’s ears, one’s hands, a pair of wings. Pairs that do not normally distinguish such a complementary distinction (e.g., - one’s eyes) can nevertheless be optionally placed in the COALESCENT - affiliation to emphasize bilateral symmetry (e.g., one’s left and + one’s eyes) can nevertheless be optionally placed in the COALESCENT + affiliation to emphasize bilateral symmetry (e.g., one’s left and right eye functioning together).

With verbs, the COALESCENT signifies that related, synergistic nature of the component acts, states, and events which @@ -662,7 +662,7 @@ specifically address the quantity to which a formative is instantiated within a given context, nor when it occurs relative to the present, but rather the manner in which it is spatio-temporally instantiated. Specifically, - Perspective indicates whether a noun or verb is to be identified as 1) a “bounded” + Perspective indicates whether a noun or verb is to be identified as 1) a “bounded” contextual entity (i.e., having a spatio-temporally unified or accessible manifestation), 2) an unbounded entity (i.e., manifested as spatio-temporally separated or inaccessible), 3) as a unified collective or generic entity throughout spacetime, or 4) as @@ -676,21 +676,21 @@ Affiliation (see Secs. 3.1 and 3.2 above) already contain an implicit numerical element due to the fact that they usually describe - multi-membered sets. It is for all these reasons that the terms “singular” - and “plural” have been avoided.

+ multi-membered sets. It is for all these reasons that the terms “singular” + and “plural” have been avoided.

Perspective with Verbs. For verbs, the aspect - of “boundedness” inherent in Perspective does not imply a quantitative - context but rather an aspect of spatio-temporal “accessibility,” + of “boundedness” inherent in Perspective does not imply a quantitative + context but rather an aspect of spatio-temporal “accessibility,” i.e., whether or not an act, state, or event can be viewed as a unified whole - within the present temporal context. This is a long way from the “tense” + within the present temporal context. This is a long way from the “tense” categories of Western languages. In Ithkuil, the notion of linearly progressive time is not inherently expressed in the verb (although it can be specified, if necessary, using various aspectual markers - see Sec. 6.4).

There are four perspectives in Ithkuil: MONADIC, UNBOUNDED, NOMIC, and ABSTRACT. - They are shown morpho-phonologically by shifts in a formative’s syllabic - stress patterns. Each perspective’s specific meaning and usage is detailed + They are shown morpho-phonologically by shifts in a formative’s syllabic + stress patterns. Each perspective’s specific meaning and usage is detailed below.


@@ -703,21 +703,21 @@

The MONADIC signifies a bounded embodiment - of a particular configuration. By “bounded embodiment” is meant + of a particular configuration. By “bounded embodiment” is meant a contextual entity which, though possibly numerous in membership or multifaceted in structure, or spread out through a time duration, is nevertheless being contextually - viewed and considered as a “monad,” a single, unified whole perceived + viewed and considered as a “monad,” a single, unified whole perceived to exist within a literal or figurative psychologically uninterrupted boundary. This is important, since configurations other than the UNIPLEX technically imply more than one discrete entity/instance being present or taking place. For nouns, this boundary is physically contiguous, like a container, - corresponding to the “surface” of an object (whether literal or + corresponding to the “surface” of an object (whether literal or psychological). For verbs, this boundary is psychologically temporal, specifically - the “present” (which in Ithkuil might be better thought of as the - “context at hand” or the “immediately accessible context”). - This distinction as to how “bounded embodiment” is interpreted for + the “present” (which in Ithkuil might be better thought of as the + “context at hand” or the “immediately accessible context”). + This distinction as to how “bounded embodiment” is interpreted for nouns and verbs is appropriate, given that Ithkuil considers nouns as spatially - reified concepts while considering verbs to be their temporally “activized” + reified concepts while considering verbs to be their temporally “activized” counterparts (see Section 2.6.1).

Thus, using the word tree for example, while there might be many trees present in terms of number, the MONADIC @@ -726,16 +726,16 @@ an example, the MONADIC would mean there is only one AGGREGATIVE set of trees, i.e., one forest.

At this point, it should be noted in regard to Perspective - that Ithkuil makes no distinction between “count” and “non-count” - (or “mass”) nouns. In languages such as English, nouns differ between + that Ithkuil makes no distinction between “count” and “non-count” + (or “mass”) nouns. In languages such as English, nouns differ between those that can be counted and pluralized (e.g., one apple, four boys, several nations), and those which cannot be counted or pluralized (e.g., water, sand, plastic, air, laughter). All nouns are countable in Ithkuil in that all nouns can exist as contextual monads. As a result, English translations - of certain Ithkuil nouns must often be “contextual” rather than + of certain Ithkuil nouns must often be “contextual” rather than literal, employing various conventions to put the noun in a numerical and pluralizable - context, e.g., ‘some dirt,’ ‘the air here’ or ‘a - puff of air’ rather than “a dirt” or “an air.”

+ context, e.g., ‘some dirt,’ ‘the air here’ or ‘a + puff of air’ rather than “a dirt” or “an air.”

With verbs, the MONADIC superficially corresponds in a very approximate fashion with Western present tense categories except in a habitual sense. As noted above, the bounded embodiment conveyed @@ -775,12 +775,12 @@ -

By “accessible past” or “accessible future” +

By “accessible past” or “accessible future” is meant a past or future where the speaker was (or will be) spatially present - at the time and the time elapsed between then and “now” is psychologically + at the time and the time elapsed between then and “now” is psychologically contiguous, i.e., the speaker views the passage of time from then till now as one continuous temporal flow of moments, not as disconnected memories, disconnected - predictions, or historical reports. Conversely, “inaccessible” would + predictions, or historical reports. Conversely, “inaccessible” would mean a past or future where the speaker was not or will not be present or which he/she knows only from memory, reports, or predictions.

The MONADIC is marked by penultimate @@ -795,19 +795,19 @@ The Unbounded -

The UNBOUNDED signifies “unbounded - embodiment” of a particular configurative entity, meaning that the noun +

The UNBOUNDED signifies “unbounded + embodiment” of a particular configurative entity, meaning that the noun or verb manifests itself as not being contained within an uninterrupted boundary, - i.e., in contextually “disconnected” manifestations. For nouns, - the term “plural” has been avoided so as not to imply that the member + i.e., in contextually “disconnected” manifestations. For nouns, + the term “plural” has been avoided so as not to imply that the member nouns are not being referred to quantitatively per se, but rather as a non-monadic (i.e., non-unified) manifestation of a configurative set. While the most convenient translation into English would be to use the plural, e.g., trees, groves, lumps of dirt, a semantically (if not morphologically) more accurate rendering would - be ‘a tree here, a tree there,’ ‘this grove and another and - another…,’ ‘dirt-lump after dirt-lump after dirt-lump….’ + be ‘a tree here, a tree there,’ ‘this grove and another and + another
,’ ‘dirt-lump after dirt-lump after dirt-lump
.’

-

For verbs, “unbounded embodiment” means that the +

For verbs, “unbounded embodiment” means that the psychological temporal boundary of an act, state, or event is not accessible from the present context. This would apply to an act, state, or event which: