Untitled Document

The term lexico-semantics refers to the relationship + between the lexicon of a language (i.e., its root-words and word-stems) and + the various possible semantic categories created by the human mind. Every language + (and particularly every language family) divides the world up differently in + terms of what sorts of concepts are made into words and how the meanings of + those words reflect the reality around us. In other words, the lexico-semantics + of a language answers the questions what semantic concepts does this language + psycho-linguistically categorize into autonomous words and how are each of these +categories internally organized?

1) Ilaksh morpho-phonology only allows for 3600 possible root + words, as explained in Chapter 2. This means that the concepts chosen to be + conveyed by these roots must be carefully selected to insure the widest range + of conceptualization possible within such a limited framework.

2) We have seen throughout this work how Ilaksh’s matrix-like + grammatical structure allows for an incredible amount of synergy in terms of + morphological word-derivation, generating wholly new, emergent concepts from + word-roots, not simply mere conjugations, declensions, and transparent derivations. + In order to ensure the maximum amount of dynamism in deriving new concepts morphologically + from existing word-roots, it is important that those initial roots be carefully + selected in terms of meaning.

In this chapter, we will examine the many considerations that + go in to the assigning of concepts to those 3600 roots, in order to optimally + accomplish what has been demonstrated throughout this work: using the dynamics + of Ilaksh morphology to eliminate the need for the hundred thousand or more + autonomous word roots of natural languages, or to put it colloquially, “getting + the most lexico-semantic bang for the morpho-phonological buck.”

We will start first with a review of key components in the + systemic design of Ilaksh morphology. This will be followed by sections on + those areas of Ilaksh lexico-semantics which are most profoundly distinct from + Western languages.

The last section deals with comparison to Western categorizations, + examining how Ilaksh lexico-semantics reinterprets certain concepts considered + “fundamental” in English and other Western languages.

Ilaksh systematically uses its myriad of morphological categories + to derive secondary concepts from more basic concepts, often eliminating the + need for separate lexicalization, i.e., eliminating the need to create separate + word-roots for new but related concepts as is so often the case in Western languages. + We will explore this system of morphological derivation more closely, particularly + in regard to its universality across the spectrum of Ilaksh word-roots.

+ 10.1.1 Stem Derivation from Roots

We have already seen many applied examples of the above-described + concepts, particularly in Section + 2.4 et seq. regarding the use of the three different syllabic stress patterns to derive a trinary array of interrelated stems from a root, as well as mutating the root-consonant of those trinary stems to in turn derive two separate arrays + of complementary stems from the initial holistic array of stems. Through this + system of stress patterns and consonant mutation, we saw how a single root generates no + less than eighteen formative stems, each functioning as a noun or verb. This + is illustrated below using the example root dù-‘TRANSLATIVE MOTION’.

+ As described in Chapter 2, this hierarchical pattern of stem + derivation and division into complementary stems from a more basic or underlying + “holistic” stem allows for significant collapsing in the number + of word-roots necessary compared to Western languages, as words that are semantically + interrelated in a hierarchical or complementary fashion can be derived morphologically + from a basic root, as opposed to being assigned separate word-roots as in other + languages. The above root dù- demonstrates how concepts such come versus go are expressed as complementary derivations of a single underlying concept TRANSLATIVE + MOTION. All such complementary stems based on participant perspective +are similarly patterned, e.g., lead/follow, buy/sell, give/take, etc.

Additionally, this hierarchical structure of stem derivation + from a single root using vocalic infixes allows for the creation of “built-in” + classification schemes and taxonomies for concepts which require them. Biological + taxonomies, for example, can be easily accommodated under this scheme, as illustrated + below:

Using the nine degrees of the Stem + Specific Derivative SSD affix -V1k from Section 7.4.13 on such a root, we can extend this scheme to denote specific + parts, products or derived resources such as a the milk, oil, meat, skin or + hide, tail, tusk or horn, hair or fur (e.g., wool), etc. The Degree + of Maturity MAT affix -V0ç from Section 7.4.10 is also applied to indicate the developmental stage of the +animal.

A different pattern applies to individual animal species, first + dividing the two Forms (Designations) of the root into the animal itself versus + the animal as a resource, the holistic stems indicating first the generic species + then male versus female. The complementary stems then make the further distinction + between wild versus domesticated for the informal stem and between food/prey + and derived or processed products for the formal stem. The SSD affix is again used to specify parts or products of the animal, while the MAT affix distinguishes the developmental stages, providing derived equivalents + to words such as foal, fawn, lamb or cub, from horse, + deer, goat, or lion.

+ 10.1.2 The Use of Affixes

In Chapter 7, we saw how many of the 150-odd affix categories + can be used to generate both derivative concepts (e.g., xäl ‘hill’ + V1x/7 + ‘very large’ → xälïx ‘very large hill’) as + well as amalgamated gestalts carrying a new holistic meaning (e.g., xäl ‘hill’ + V2x/7 + ‘very large’ → xälëx ‘mountain’). As an example, + here are only ten of the various new concepts which can be derived through affixes + from the stem allá- ‘say something [i.e., + communicate a verbal message]’:

Similarly the use of the Consent CNS suffix, the Reason RSN suffix, the Expectation XPT suffix, the Deliberateness DLB suffix, the Enablement ENB suffix, the Agency/Intent AGN suffix, and the Impact IMP suffix from Section + 7.4.12 in conjunction w/ Transrelative cases (Sec. + 4.3), provides a means for describing extremely subtle scenarios of causation, + willingness, enablement, hindrance, etc. which other languages can only capture + via long-winded paraphrase. Employing this array of affixes and cases, a sentence + such as The singer stopped the boys from playing around can be translated + into Ilaksh in many syntactically equivalent (but morphologically distinct) + ways to indicate whether the singer used physical force or persuasion to stop + the boys, whether she stopped them via an indirect enabling means (such as turning + out the lights), or whether it was the boys themselves who stopped upon hearing + her voice or seeing her beauty, or even by her mere presence interrupting them + (such as walking in on them inadvertently), as well as the degree of willingness + or consent with which they stopped. The following example sentence further illustrates + the complex detail which these suffixes make possible:

+ The DEV suffix from Sec. 7.4.9, + in first degree, roughly corresponds to the reversive prefixes of English such + as ‘un-,’ ‘de-,’ and ‘dis-’ to indicate + the undoing or opposite of a word. However, in Ilaksh this suffix is productive + for all semantically applicable stems and operates in conjunction with Modality + (Section 6.1) + and the Modality suffixes from Section 7.4.11 to extend the system of modalities, as illustrated by the following:

promise to + DEV/1 = + foreswear, vow never to
+ can (know how to) + DEV/1 = be ignorant of
+ decide to + DEV/1 = avoid
+ offer to + DEV/1 = refuse to
+ agree upon/to + DEV/1 = decline to/abstain from
+ like to + DEV/1 = loathe
+ fear to + DEV/1 = love to
+ need to + DEV/1 = dispensable, unnecessary to, can dispense with

10.1.3 The Use of Configuration, Affiliation, and Context

Each of these categories has means to generate amalgamate, + holistic, or emergent concepts from a more basic underlying stem.

10.1.3.1 Configuration: In Sec. + 3.1 we saw how applying each of the nine Configuration categories to a stem + often generates forms based on amalgamation of sets which require complete relexification + when translated into English. Examples are:

10.1.3.2 Affiliation: In Sec. + 3.2 we saw how the four Affiliations can generate new concepts based on + delineations of purpose, benefit, or function. Examples include:

10.1.3.3 Context: In Sec. + 3.5.4 we encountered the AMALGAMATE context, which + serves to identify a stem specifically as a gestalt entity, composed of objective + and subjective/social elements or components which contribute to the overall + nature of the stem. Depending on the stem to which it is applied, the use of + the amalgamate can cause relexification in translating to English. Examples:

10.1.4 The Use of Designation and Version

In Section + 3.6 on Designation as well as Sec. + 5.5 on Version, we saw how both of these morphological categories create + distinctions in word-stems which usually require relexification in translation. + The following word pairs illustrate such relexification:

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

(the) past → history	see → observe
writings → literature	one → single/singular
wordplay → rhetoric	hear → listen
behavior → demeanor	desire → request
wander → travel	query → research
eat → dine	ponder → analyze
containment → storage	path → route

Again we see that application of morphological categories + to word-stems serves to generate forms which substitute for lexical distinctions + in other languages, thus helping to reduce the size of the Ilaksh lexicon.

10.1.5 The Use of Phase and Extension

The use of the nine Phases, as explained in Sec. + 5.3, used in conjunction with the category of Extension (Sec. + 3.4) gives rise to an elaborate means by which to describe phenomena in + terms of duration, periodicity, repetition, iterativity, and cyclic phenomena. + When used in conjunction with the twelve Modulative affixes from Sec. + 7.4.7, the Iteration ITN and Repetition RPN affixes from Sec. 7.4.5 and the Intensity ITY affix from Sec. 7.4.10, + Phase becomes an extremely powerful means to describe with great subtlety all + phenomena which display vibratory, oscillative, wavering, on-off, or variative + movement, motion, or intensity. As an example, specific application of the various + phases combined with the aforementioned affixes and other affix categories to + a single stem ččà- ‘[make] sound’ can give rise to translations for all of the following + English words:

+ + + + + + + +

acoustic
+ audible
+ auditory
+ bang
+ blast
+ boom
+ buzz
+ cacophony
+ calm
+ click
+ clickety-clack
+ clink
+ crack
+ crackle
+ crash
+ din
+ discord
+ dissonance
+ drone
+ echo
+ explosion

faint + sound
+ fizz
+ gag
+ grate
+ hiss
+ howl
+ hullabaloo
+ hum
+ hush
+ jangle
+ kerplunk
+ knock
+ loud(ness)
+ lull
+ moan
+ muffle
+ murmur
+ mute
+ noise
+ pandemonium
+ peal
+

pit-a-pat
+ plink
+ pop
+ quaver
+ quiet
+ racket
+ rap
+ rat-a-tat
+ rattle
+ raucous
+ resonant
+ reverberate
+ ring
+ roar
+ rumble
+ rush of sound
+ rustle
+ screech
+ shrill
+ silence
+ snap

sonorous
+ sound
+ staccato
+ stifle
+ strident
+ stutter
+ swirl
+ swish
+ tap
+ thump
+ tick
+ toot
+ twang
+ uproar
+ vibration
+ whir
+ whistle
+ whiz
+ whoosh

The same principles applied to other types of stems give rise + to a plethora of complex and subtle means for describing motions, paths, trajectories, + movement in situ, light emanation, reflection, consistency, texture, variation + in shape, visual complexity, etc.

Many languages have class systems for both nouns and verbs, + in which a specific pattern of morpho-phonological markers are assigned to a + specified set of roots. Often, class membership is quite arbitrary as in the + three conjugational classes of Spanish, Italian, or French verbs. In other cases, + class membership roughly corresponds to an underlying semantic category, as + seen in the masculine versus feminine versus neuter class system of many languages. + Non-Western languages often delineate a greater number of classes determined + by categories of shape, purpose, socio-cultural factors, and other objective + or subjective semantic factors.

Ilaksh displays a pattern of ten morpho-semantic classes for + its 3600 roots. In Ilaksh, class is delineated by a combination of the Vr vocalic component of the stem (see Section + 2.2) plus the stem’s tone, i.e., the Vr plus tone indicates + to which of the ten classes a root belongs. In this manner, the consonant pattern + of an Ilaksh root always provides a clue as to general meaning of the root. + The ten Ilaksh classes with their corresponding Vr plus tone combinations are shown + in the table below.

Another area of the lexicon where Western languages tend to + divide up reality into binary oppositions is the realm of spatial dimensions, + where pairs such as near/far, small/large, thin/thick, narrow/wide, tall/short, + light/heavy, hot/cold, etc. are commonplace. As with the perspective-based + oppositions seen in the preceding section, again Ilaksh lexico-semantics treats + such concepts in a wholly different way. Rather than lexicalize such concepts + as pairs of binary oppositions, Ilaksh delineates these qualities as varying + points along a continuous range. In other words, in Ilaksh you do not + say X is cold and Y is hot, but rather X has less temperature and Y has greater temperature. Similarly, one does not say A is + near to me and B is far from me, but rather the distance from + me to A (or proximity of A to me) is less than the distance from me + to B (or proximity of B to me). Note that the choice of translation for + the latter stem as either ‘distance’ or ‘proximity’ + becomes arbitrary, as the real meaning of the Ilaksh formative is ‘amount + of linear space separating one party from another.’ Virtually all Western + descriptive and dimensional oppositions are similarly handled in Ilaksh as + mere variance in the quantity of a single quality, the degree of an attribute, + or the extent along a spatio-temporal range or continuum.

Concepts of spatial position and orientation are expressed + very differently in Ilaksh as compared to Western languages such as English. + The three major differences are explained below, each of which will be explored + in detail in the sections which follow.

1) Ilaksh does not employ prepositions; all notions of spatial + relationships, position, and orientation are designated by nominal/verbal formatives.

2) While Western languages allow spatial/positional reference + to function autonomously irrespective of the speaker’s cognitive or semantic + intent, Ilaksh subordinates spatial/positional reference at the lexico-semantic + level in deference to the cognitive or semantic purpose of an utterance. What + this means is that sentences describing spatial relationships or positional + reference are only used when the underlying intent of the speaker’s utterance + is purely to specify spatial or positional reference information. If, in fact, + the underlying intent of the utterance is to show some functional or purposeful + relationship (where a spatial relationship is merely coincidental or consequential), + the Ilaksh sentence will describe this function or purpose, not the spatial + relationship. For example, in answer to the question Where’s Billy? an English speaker might give answers such as (a) He’s standing right + next to Sam, or (b) He’s in bed, or (c) He’s in + the bathtub. While each of these sentences gives spatial information, only + the first is truly intended to convey spatial information as its purpose, while + sentences (b) and (c) imply information that is, in fact, more relevant than + the spatial information given, e.g., sentence (b) could be restated as ‘He’s + sleeping (or sick),’ while sentence (c) could be restated as ‘He’s + bathing.’ An Ilaksh speaker would not utter sentences like (b) or (c) + in answer to the query about Billy, since he/she would assume the question Where’s + Billy? is intended to inquire only about Billy’s physical position + in absolute space. If the questioner had, in fact, been seeking non-spatial + information, he/she would have asked the Ilaksh equivalent of What’s + Billy doing? or What’s happening with Billy? to which a + Ilaksh speaker would answer with sentences corresponding to the rephrased versions + of (b) or (c), not their original versions.

3) Ilaksh utilizes an absolute coordinate system of comparative + spacial reference, not a relative one as found in most languages. Note the positional + ambiguity inherent in sentences such as He’s standing to the left + of the desk. To be meaningful, the listener must first determine from whose + perspective the speaker is referring (i.e., do we mean the speaker’s left, + the addressee’s left, the desk’s left relative to the position of + the speaker, the desk’s left relative to the position of the addressee, + or the desk’s left relative to the direction the desk is oriented/facing?) + Such ambiguity occurs because Western languages employ a relative coordinate + system which can shift from one participant or referent object to another. Ilaksh + spatial reference employs an absolute coordinate system independent of the perspective + of a participant (e.g., the speaker or addressee) or referent object (i.e., + the thing(s) whose position is being described), as opposed to the relative + coordinate system found in Western languages. The Ilaksh system allows listeners + to understand exactly the spatial relationship and orientation of any object(s) + in absolute space, irrespective of anyone’s (or anything’s) personal + perspective.

+ 10.4.1 Formatives vs. Prepositions

Besides lexically “partitioning” the world of two- + and three-dimensional space in different ways than in Western languages, Ilaksh + has no prepositions. Rather, Ilaksh utilizes formatives which describe a spatial + relationship between two objects or between an object and an associated background, + the nearest translations being a noun meaning “the area X” or a + verb meaning “to be positioned X”, where X corresponds to a Western + preposition or positional adverb such as “in” or “inside.”

10.4.2 Underlying Cognitive Purpose of an Utterance

Ilaksh grammar considers the functional relationship between + two objects to be primarily relevant, not their spatial orientation or position + relative to each other (or between an object and its background). When it comes + to describing an object against a background or the relationship between two + objects, Ilaksh grammar is more interested in answering the question How + do X and Y function relative to each other, rather than How are X and + Y positioned in space relative to each other?

For example: in uttering the English sentence The vase + is on the table, is the intention of the sentence to tell the listener + the physical coordinate position of the vase in 3-D space relative to the table, + or to tell the listener that the vase is being physically supported (i.e., against + gravity) by the table? If the intention is the former, the corresponding Ilaksh + sentence would indeed utilize a spatial formative translatable as ‘manifest + self on the top side of a surface that is horizontal relative to the direction + of gravity.’ However, if the intention is to actually indicate support + against gravity, the Ilaksh sentence would not utilize a spatial reference + at all, but rather translate the sentence more or less as The table is supporting + the vase. As a result, spatial, locative, or orientational formatives in + Ilaksh are used far less often than corresponding prepositions and spatial + constructions in English or other Western languages. Note the following examples + illustrating how various English sentences utilizing the concept ‘in’ + (meaning ‘inside’ or ‘into’) are translated into Ilaksh + using various non-spatial roots based on reason or purpose.

+ This functional prioritization notwithstanding, Ilaksh is nevertheless + able, if necessary, to describe true spatial relationships and orientations + quite specifically. However, it does so in ways that are very unfamiliar in + terms of Western grammar. These are described in the following section.

+ 10.4.3 Absolute vs. Relative Spatial/Positional Coordinates

While Western languages are capable of describing the physical + position and orientation of object in absolute terms (e.g., My hometown + is located at 93°41'36"W by 43°12'55"N), it is not normal + to do so in general parlance. Rather, Western spatial position and orientation + is normally relative, i.e., described from the dynamic perspective of the two + objects themselves or from the perspective of a third party observer (usually, + but not exclusively, the speaker). Therefore, if I describe the position of + objects in my backyard to you on the telephone, and you have never seen my backyard, + phrases such as ‘the swingset is against the wall,’ ‘the barbecue + is sitting to my right,’ ‘the elm tree is behind the shed’ + and ‘the rose bush is beyond the bird fountain’ convey little information + without first having to establish a common frame of reference based on where + the speaker is positioned relative to the edges of the yard (in order to interpret + what he means by ‘beyond the fountain’), which way he is facing + relative to the yard (in order to interpret what he means by ‘to my right’), + perhaps even the orientation of the shape of the yard relative to some external + absolute system of orientation (e.g., the four cardinal directions N, S, E, + W).

In such a relative scheme concepts such as ‘to my right’ + change completely if I turn my body 180 degrees. Confusion also occurs when + I say ‘to the left of the chair.’ Do I mean to the left side of + the chair from my (the speaker’s) perspective? Or do I mean to the left + side of the chair from the perspective of someone sitting in the chair?

Ilaksh avoids such confusions by being based on an absolute + coordinate system of spatial reference as opposed to a relative system (similar + in nature to the absolute system used in navigation based on the four cardinal + points.). Very few languages on Earth utilize such absolute systems to the exclusion + of relative systems. (Examples include Guugu Yimidhirr, an Australian aboriginal + language; Tzeltal, a Yucatec Mayan language; and Yurok, an Algonquian Indian + language of Northern California). Ilaksh utilizes three different absolute + coordinate schemes, each functioning within a different speech context. These + coordinate systems establish a three-dimensional right-angled coordinate grid + superimposed upon space, with the X-axis reckoned from a line perpendicular + to the direction of gravity (which, for practical purposes, we may term “horizontal”), + the Z-axis reckoned by a line corresponding to the direction of gravity (which + may be termed the “vertical”) and the all-important Y-axis (which + differentiates a relative system from an absolute) derived from one of three + points of reckoning depending on which coordinate scheme is being utilized. + The three schemes are as follows:

1) Solar-based system. This is the standard + Ilaksh system of reckoning. The line of the Y-axis runs parallel to the rising + and setting points of the sun in mid-summer, with the vector oriented in the + direction of the setting sun. Note that the alignment of this Y-axis relative + to the X-axis is variable; i.e., the line connecting the rising and setting + points of the sun merely designate the direction of the Y-axis, not + it actual position. This is necessary so that descriptions of spatial relationships + can be made using a “quadrant locator” system based on this grid, + where any two objects can be made to lie within different quadrants relative + to each other (this will be illustrated below).

Use of this solar-based reckoning system continues at nighttime + and on overcast or rainy days, based on society’s collective knowledge + and/or recollection of landmarks indicating the rising and setting points of + the sun. Use of this system even continues indoors if there exists a collective + understanding of the orientation of the building/structure/room relative to + the solar-based Y-axis (i.e., everyone in the room can still tell the orientation + of the outdoor Y-axis, whether by sight through windows, or by noticing that + the length-width ratios of the room are aligned with the outdoor Y-axis).

2) Length vs. width of enclosed space or room. + In indoor situations where the orientation of the outdoor solar-based Y-axis + is unknown (or cannot be readily determined on a continuous basis as new speakers + enter the room), an arbitrary Y-axis is connoted by the length of the room in + a direction away from whichever end of the room displays a visibly unique feature + (e.g., the doorway, a window, an alcove, an imposing piece of furniture, a stage + or dais, etc.), this symbolically substituting for the position of the rising + sun. This is the coordinate system which would be employed in theaters, enclosed + banquet halls without windows, and cellars without windows or ready access to + outside orientation.

3) Arbitrarily delineated axis based on local landmarks, + objects, or persons. This is similar to a Western relative system in + which the speaker announces the orientation perspective being utilized. An Ilaksh + speaker would consider this a highly unusual and “affected” method + of reckoning. Nevertheless, it is possible to designate a personally defined + reckoning system using words to designate the origin point and direction of + the Y-axis vector, examples translatable by such phrases as ‘based on + a vector from me to that large window’ or ‘based on a vector between + the shed and the big oak tree.’ In fact, this is the purpose of the NAVIGATIVE case (see Sec. 4.7.6). + The primary use for this system of reckoning is literary or narrative, such + as when a speaker tells a story of another time and place, in which he/she wishes + to describe spatial relationships solely within the context of the story in + order to convey a mental map or image of the goings-on to his/her audience.

+ 10.4.3.1 Describing Spatial Relationships between Two or More Objects. + Using such a triaxial three-dimensional grid, Ilaksh then lexically divides + up space into “quadrants”, four quadrants to each given “hemisphere” + of absolute space delineated by the three axes, for a total of eight quadrants.

There are eighteen additional roots corresponding to the above + where either one or two of the X/Y/Z values are zero, indicating concepts equivalent + English phrases such as ‘neither above nor below,’ ‘straight + down,’ ‘straight ahead,’ ‘directly behind,’ ‘straight + up,’ ‘on the same plane as,’ etc. The above quadrants are + indicated in the illustrations below.

Because the lateral alignment (but not direction) of the solar-based + X and Y-axes are variable (i.e., each can be slid laterally relative to the + other axis), any two objects whose relative positions are to be described can + be made to fall within two different quadrants, as illustrated in figures A, + B, C and D below (Figure A represents the background context for which Figures + B, C and D present varying positional frames of reference).
+
+

+ It is the ability to “slide” the axes of this three-dimensional + grid that allows Ilaksh to easily describe the relative position of objects + in an absolute manner. Because the grid can be arranged so that any two objects + each fall into different quadrants, a series of quadrant-to-quadrant relationships + between the two objects can be lexified. Thus, each of the above roots has a + stem which, in conjunction with a set of affixes, designates a spatial relationship + between an object occupying that quadrant and a second object occupying any + of the seven other quadrants. For the purpose of this analysis, we will call + each of these quadrant-to-quadrant static relationships a “positional + frame.” (the leftover affixes refer to (1) 1st object in motion while + 2nd object at rest, and (2) 2nd object in motion while first object at rest. + Used to mark the participant nouns with motion sentences described below.)

Additionally, such a positional reference system allows a speaker + to describe exactly the spatial relationships between two objects in motion relative + to each other. This is done in Ilaksh by stating that two object are moving + from positional frame A toward positional frame B. If one remembers that, by + “positional frame” we mean a spatial relationship between two objects, + not a specific location in space, it can be seen how such a simple formula easily + describes the relative trajectories of two objects. An Ilaksh speaker is describing + exactly how two objects are moving through space by stating in one short sentence + the quadrant-to-quadrant relationship the two objects have to start with, and + the quadrant-to-quadrant relationship they will have when the motion is ended. + The root used to describe the motion indicates the nature of the motion in terms + of its smoothness, speed, etc.

To insert a third party into a positional frame (such as describing + where the speaker or addressee or third party is situated relative to the two + objects described in the positional frame) a case-frame clause is added to the + sentence in the concursive case (“while/during/at the time of”) + which states the positional frame between that third party and the FIRST party + (unless the 2nd party is overtly specified). Example: “The dog and the + ball M’d while the cat N’d,” where M is the positional frame + of the dog and ball and N is the positional frame between the cat and dog.

Based on the above, we can see just how exact Ilaksh can be + in describing relative position between objects in an absolute manner. This + is best illustrated by narrowly translating into English an Ilaksh sentence + which describes a three-party positional situation.
+

There is no way to translate this Ilaksh sentence into everyday + English except via inadequate approximation, thus: The woman stood still + as something made the boy run from ahead and above her, then past her, while + I watched them from behind and below. However, a more exact, narrow translation + of this sentence, capturing all of the positional/orientational specificity + of the original, would run as follows:
+

10.4.3.2 Object-Internal Shape and Orientation. Note that, in + addition the above concepts of a positional grid for locating objects in space + and in positional relation to each other, Ilaksh also employs a whole set of + vocabulary to describe the physical topology, shape and internal self-orientation + of an object by itself. These are similar to words such as “face, back, + front, sides, top, bottom, appendage, tail, arm, etc., although it should be noted + that the equivalent Ilaksh terms are wholly autonomous and bear no metaphorical + relationship whatsoever to anthropomorphic body parts. Therefore, the “legs” + of a chair correspond more accurately to its “supports” or “struts” + in Ilaksh, while the “face” of a blackboard would correspond to a + word translatable only periphrastically as “main functional surface” + or “primary interface area” (although note that even this paraphrase + cannot avoid the anthropomorphic morpheme “-face”).

In a word-for-word comparison to a Eurocentric vocabulary, + especially one as large as that of English, the Ilaksh lexicon appears very + overgeneralized in many respects. At first impression, it appears that shades + of meaning expressed by multiple words in English are expressed by only one + root in Ilaksh. As we have seen repeatedly throughout this work, this is primarily + due to the fact that shades of meaning for a single underlying cognitive concept + are normally differentiated at the morphological level in Ilaksh, as opposed + to the lexical. Nevertheless, there are several lexico-semantic areas where + Ilaksh truly does generalize in comparison to Western languages. This occurs + primarily where (1) Western vocabulary distinguishes separate lexemes for a + redundant concept based on different participants to, practitioners of, or manifestations + of that concept, and (2) where lexification is at an arbitrarily detailed or + particularized level. These topics are discussed in detail in the following + sections.

+ 10.5.1 Consolidation of Unnecessary Distinctions

As an example of lexical generalization in Ilaksh (or over-lexicalization + in English!), compare the following words for animal vocal sounds: meow, + bark, whinny, chirp, moo, bray, etc. Each of these words mean merely to + make one’s species-specific inherent vocal sound. Ilaksh utilizes only + a single stem for this concept (essentially meaning vocal sound/vocalize – from the same root which gives the stem for (human) voice), + based on the logical assumption that, since cats can’t bark, whinny or + moo, and dogs can’t meow, whinny or moo, there is no need to differentiate + lexically the innate vocal sound being made by an animal if the animal making + the sound is identified in the sentence. Of course, one might argue that English + allows for metaphorical or similative application of such words, as in The + sergeant barked out orders to the platoon, or The baby squealed in + delight. Such constructions are perfectly captured in Ilaksh via the ESSIVE and ASSIMILATIVE cases, as in He ‘vocalized’ the orders like a dog, or The + baby ‘vocalized’ like a baby piglet from feeling delight, or + via the manipulation of Function, Incorporation and Format (see Sections 6.4 and 6.5).

Similar series of English words which reduce to a single stem + in Ilaksh would be (1) herd, flock, pride, gaggle, etc.; (2) hair, + fur, fleece, coat, etc.; (3) skin, hide, pelt, pellicle, peel, rind, + lambskin, leather, integument, etc.

10.5.2 Translative Motion, Paths and Trajectories

By translative motion is meant the idea of an object moving + (or being moved) from one location to another. English is particularly rich + in its vocabulary to describe the various paths or trajectories of such an object, + not only in regard to the “shape” or form of the path or trajectory, + but also the means of initiating the movement. Thus we have terms such as to + toss, throw, pitch, hurl, fling, roll, run, or pass a ball or + other object. In reaching its destination, the object can fly, float, wing, + pass, arc, sail, plummet, drop, fall, thread, hop, leap, bounce, roll, zig-zag, + slide, glide, slither, or jump its way there.

As we have seen to be the case in other contexts, Ilaksh lexifies + concepts of translative motion with a focus on the contexts of purpose and outcome, + not on the “innate structure” of the event as an end in itself. + Essentially, Ilaksh is less concerned with how the object gets there and is + more concerned about why it’s going there and whether it arrives. For + example, look at the following two columns of English sentences :

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

+ I tossed it into + the basket. +	It sailed + into the basket.
+ I flung it into the + basket. +	It flew into the basket.
+ I hurled it into + the basket. +	It arced its way into + the basket.
+ I pitched it into + the basket. +	It fell into the basket.

The sentences in the lefthand column + describes how I initiate the action while those in the righthand column describe + how the object moves. In Ilaksh the lefthand column of sentences would normally + all be translated by a single sentence narrowly translatable as I made it + end up inside the basket, while the righthand column of sentences would + all be translated by the exact same sentence minus the ERGATIVE personal referent I, thus: It ended up inside the basket.

So where are the words translating the range of descriptive + nuance surrounding the means of sending it into the basket and the different + trajectories it takes there? In normal Ilaksh speech, such distinctions would + be considered irrelevant. This is because Ilaksh grammar questions all acts, + conditions and events as to their underlying cognitive purpose. For the above + sentences, Ilaksh views them as all having the same underlying purpose: to + express that I have caused an object to pass from a state of being in my alienable + possession to a state of being within the basket, by passing through the physical + space between me and the basket. Therefore there is only one translation for + the varying sentence pairs.

Before the reader begins to think that Ilaksh is incapable + of distinguishing the shades of meaning present in the above examples, it should + be noted that such distinctions can be easily rendered by additional affixes + and words describing these concepts. For example, if it is truly necessary to + indicate that the object was “flung” into the basket, Ilaksh can + augment the sentence I made it end up inside the basket to include + affixes which indicate use of the hand in a sudden recoil-like motion plus affixes + indicating forceful and rapid arrival into the basket, the result being narrowly + translatable as Using my hand in a sudden, subtle, recoil-like motion I + caused it to move quickly away and end up forcefully inside the basket.

While this would more or less accurately capture the nuances + of English “flung,” Ilaksh first makes us stop and ask ourselves, + why is it even necessary to describe the details of the trajectory and the force + initiating it? After all, in a normal everyday contextual setting, if an English + speaker were to use the verb “tossed” or “threw” or + “placed” or “put” instead of “flung” in + the above sentence, would his/her speaker be considered to have been given information + any less sufficient or essential for understanding the message and its purpose? + All of which again illustrates the dynamism of Ilaksh lexico-semantics: if + a complex, highly detailed morphology already conveys a high degree of semantic + and cognitive nuance, why belabor the obvious by reinforcing such nuances at + the lexical level if the context and underlying cognitive purpose of the utterance + does not require it? Thus the Ilaksh language not only captures levels of cognitive + detail beyond the scope of Western languages, but it also allows the speaker + to avoid having to provide such detail when it is inessential.

10.5.3 No Lexification of Specific Instances of Underlying + Processes

In regard to over-lexification in English from a Ilaksh perspective, + an example would be limp, as in ‘to walk with a limp.’ + Ilaksh recognizes that, in observing a person walking with a limp, it is not + the condition per se that is relevant, but rather the manner in which + the condition causes the person to move, i.e. asymmetrically, irregularly, discontinuously + in an unexpected way inconsistent with a “normal” or “standard” + expectation of walking. Ilaksh speakers would consider English limp to represent an arbitrarily specific occurrence of an underlying state of translative + movement. To a Ilaksh speaker, what is important is the way the person moves. + The idea that a person continues to “have a limp” even when sleeping + or sitting is considered absurd. What the person “continues to have” + is an underlying physical injury, abnormality, disability, illness, or deformity + which causes the person to move asymmetrically when walking. Therefore, instead + of He has a limp because of his war wound, a Ilaksh speaker would + say He walks asymmetrically/irregularly because of his war wound.

To illustrate this by analogy, consider a person who, when + dancing to rock music, has a tendency to jerk his/her head to the left at the + sound of the downbeat. Most English speakers would consider it ludicrous over-lexicalization + to propose a verb “spreggle” meaning ‘to jerk one’s + head to the left on the downbeat when dancing,’ as in the hypothetical + sentence She spreggles to rock music. Yet, from the Ilaksh standpoint, + there is no difference in arbitrariness between the hypothetical “spreggle” + and the actual word ‘limp.’

Based on a combination of the above reasoning surrounding both + animal vocal sounds and ‘limp,’ Ilaksh has no words for ‘blind(ness),’ + ‘deaf(ness),’ ‘mute(ness),’ ‘dementia,’ + or ‘paralysis.’ In Ilaksh, one simply says He can’t see, + She can’t hear, She can’t speak, He can’t think, He can’t + move, or alternately His faculty of sight (or other sense or innate + faculty) doesn’t function/no longer functions. [Note: each of + these sentences would, of course, employ appropriate morphological markers, + case, voice, degrees of affixes, etc. to indicate the extent of functional loss, + whether temporary or permanent, whether increasing or decreasing, whether externally + caused or inherently developed, etc.]

While we have examined the many ways in which the dynamism + and logic of Ilaksh grammar eliminates whole swaths of equivalent English vocabulary, + there are, nevertheless, many concepts where Ilaksh provides autonomous lexical + roots and stems for which neither English nor other Western languages provide + similar words and must resort to paraphrase in order to translate. Such concepts + are particularly found in the realm of human emotions, social relationships, + functional interrelationships between objects, philosophy, psychology, and sensory + phenomena.

Underlying such differentiation is the idea that the Ilaksh + language is meant to reflect in linguistic terms as close a representation of + human cognition and pre-linguistic epistemological categorization as is possible + in language without resorting to outright linguistic representations of pure + mathematical logic. Since the inner mental life of the speaker is often clouded + in vagueness or artificial “surface” categories once represented + in spoken languages such as English and other Eurocentric languages, a language + which is focused on representing that inner mental life will necessarily require + many more words to describe that life than are commonly available in existing + human languages.

Western languages have several words and/or concepts for which + there is no exactly corresponding equivalent in Ilaksh. These include the concepts + embodied in the verb “to be” and “to have.” Ilaksh + has no way of truly expressing copula identification corresponding to “be” + or “being”, nor any direct translation of possession or ownership + equivalent to “have.” Essentially this is because Ilaksh grammar + and lexico-semantics do not recognize inherent existential identification or + inherent existential possession as true semantic functional categories or fundamental + cognitive primitives.

+ 10.7.1 Translating “To Be”

Ilaksh grammar inherently recognizes that the universe is, + at any and all moments, and on all scales large and small, in a state of flux. + The idea that any given entity can be permanently or innately identified as + “being” some other entity is considered nonsensical. Ilaksh grammar + has no way of clearly indicating any such notions as “being” or + “to be,” as the universe is a universe of actions or states that + are the results of actions. Even states, as such, are in flux and different + from moment to moment, if only because the mere passage of time itself renders + the “static” condition different than it was the moment before. + Therefore, one cannot “be” anything else, or for that matter “be” + anything at all. Rather, one “does” or “functions as” + or “fulfills a role as” or “manifests itself as” something + else. Fundamental to Ilaksh grammar are the notions of function and purpose, + not mere description; results, not mere means; manifestation, not mere existence. + This explains why there is no true distinction between nouns and verbs in Ilaksh, + both being mere differences in functional roles played by any given formative + concept whose underlying meaning is not inherently nominal or verbal, but rather + a conceptual primitive waiting to be manifested as either (1) a representation + of an action, process, or event, (i.e., a verb), or (2) as a concrete or abstract + entity that is representative of, or embodies the underlying concept (i.e., + a noun).

So, an Ilaksh speaker does not say I am John, She is a + cook, The leaf is green, Stan is ill, or Murder is wrong, but + rather One calls me John, She cooks [for a living], The leaf [currently] + manifests a green color, Stan feels ill [or carries a disease], and Murder + controverts morality.

+ 10.7.2 Translating ‘To Have’

In regard to “have” or “having,” Ilaksh + views the concept of possession as breaking down into more specific functional + states and categories, each operating independently and having little relation + to each other.

+ 10.7.3 Translating Questions

As was discussed earlier in Section + 5.7.6 on the INTERROGATIVE illocution, the Ilaksh + language does not have a way of forming questions. Instead, Ilaksh grammar + treats an interrogative as reflecting an underlying cognitive demand for information + and/or a validation of the truth or factuality of a statement. Therefore, a + specific kind of imperative command is employed, telling the addressee to provide + the required validation or information. In some instances, questions in Western + languages are rhetorical and in fact represent a request or command. As might + be expected, Ilaksh translates such rhetorical questions as the commands they + truly are. The following examples illustrate how questions are handled in Ilaksh.

Do you know the way to San Jose?
+ [= Validate whether you know the way to San Jose.]

+ 10.7.4 ‘Yes,’ ‘No’ and Other Interjections

As there are no interjections in Ilaksh, there are no true + equivalents to “yes” and “no” in Ilaksh. Nevertheless, + there are abbreviated ways of answering the requests for information or commands + for validation that substitute for questions in Ilaksh. The closest approximations + are a few standardized sentences that answer commands using the validative mode. + These sentences translate in various ways, such as “It functions/happens/manifests + in that manner” or “It does not function/happen/manifest in that + manner”; or, “I can(not) validate that information based on... [state + evidence for validation].”

“Do you want to dance?” “No.”
+ [“State whether you will dance with me.” “I do not want to + dance with you.”

Ilaksh grammar also allows for the use of Bias affixes (see Sec. 6.6) to function + as autonomous words to convey attitudes and emotional responses similarly to + interjections in Western languages. This phenomenon has already been discussed + in Section 8.5. + Additionally, Section + 8.3 described how affixual adjuncts may be used to convey information similarly + to autonomous interjections.

+ 10.7.5 Translating Metaphorically Structured Phrases

Ilaksh grammar recognizes that much of our understanding and + expression of everyday experience is structured in terms of metaphor and metonymy + (the latter being the reference to an entity by one of its attributes, associations + or activities, as in The ham-and-cheese wants fries with + his order or The White House has its nose in our business). + Ilaksh allows for the overt designation of metaphorical concepts by several + means. These include the REPRESENTATIONAL context, Function and Incorporation, + the metonymic MET affix + -V0py, + and the two part-whole + affixes -V0rs and -V0š.


Home	4 Case Morphology	9 Syntax
Introduction	5 Verb Morphology	10 Lexico-Semantics
1 Phonology	6 More Verb Morphology	11 The Writing System
2 Morpho-Phonology	7 Suffixes	12 The Number System
3 Basic Morphology	8 Adjuncts	The Lexicon

		10.1 Systemic Morphological Derivation		10.5 Lexical Generalization
		10.2 Phonological Classification of Roots		10.6 Lexical Differentiation
		10.3 Dimensional and Descriptive Oppositions		10.7 Comparison to Western Categorization
		10.4 Spatial Position and Orientation

DÙ- ‘TRANSLATIVE MOTION’
INFORMAL Designation		FORMAL Designation
+ 1. dù- move/motion from one place to another +		+ 1. ùdu- travel/traverse; journey +
+ 2. adù- set in motion/self-directed movement from one place to another +		+ 2. udù- set off for/journey to/directed travel toward +
+ 3. àdu(la)- move/movement between one place and another (i.e., along line between two points) + + +		+ 3. ùdu(la)- travel/journey along way between two places +
COMPLEMENTARY STEMS		COMPLEMENTARY STEMS
1. tpù- go = movement outward/away +	1. -ddù- come = movement inward/toward	1. ùtpu- go traveling, be off	1. ùddu- journey to(ward)
2. atpù- go away/move away = increase distance from a starting point	2. addù- come toward/to close the distance = decrease distance toward endpoint	2. utpù- travel/journey further away from starting point	2. uddù- reach vicinity of, close in on destination
3. àtpu(la)- leave/depart = move away from one point towards another	3. àddu(la)- approach = approach one point from direction of another	3. ùtpu(la)- depart/departure from starting point on journey toward elsewhere	3. ùddu(la)- arrive/arrival, reach destination

BẸ- ‘MAMMAL’
INFORMAL Designation		FORMAL Designation
+ 1. bẹ- marsupial +		+ 1. ụbe- tamed/domesticated/pet marsupial +
+ 2. abẹ- ovoviviparous (egg-laying) mammal +		+ 2. ubẹ-tamed/domesticated/pet ovoviviparous (egg-laying) mammal +
+ 3. ạbe(la)- placental mammal + + +		+ 3. ụbe(la)-tamed/domesticated/pet placental mammal +
COMPLEMENTARY STEMS		COMPLEMENTARY STEMS
1. pkẹ- bat +	1. -bbẹ- primate	1. ụpke- + tamed/domesticated/pet bat	1. ụbbe- tamed/domesticated/pet primate
2. apkẹ- rodent	2. abbẹ- small common mammal (e.g., cat, dog, weasel, ferret, etc.)	2. upkẹ- tamed/domesticated/pet rodent	2. ubbẹ- tamed/domesticated/pet small common mammal
3. ạpke(la)- large non-primate mammal (e.g., rhino, hippopotamus, etc.)	3. ạbbe(la)- large common mammal (e.g., horse, cow, pig, sheep, goat, etc.)	3. ụpke(la)- + tamed/domesticated/pet large non-primate mammal	3. ụbbe(la)- tamed/domesticated/pet large common mamal

+ lalloákt +	‘share a secret’	suffix = DSR2/8
+ lalliépt +	‘news’	suffix = ATC2/3
+ lalliávz +	‘quip’	suffix = SCO2/5
+ lalluikyá +	‘praise’	suffix = NTR2/9
+ lalliëépt +	‘lie’ [= tell a lie]	suffix = REA2/7
+ lalloált +	‘shout out a message’	suffix = STR2/8
+ lallién +	‘persuasive person, a persuader’	suffix = AGC2/3
+ lalliëén +	‘liaison, a go-between’	suffix = AGC2/7
+ lallëhiókç +	‘whisper sweet nothings’	suffixes = AFT2/1 + FRC2/2

Ilaksh: A Philosophical Design for a Hypothetical Language

Chapter 10: Lexico-Semantics