RFC 0003: Regarding Cs

[mklcp]

2020 Ithkuil’s Affixes document defines six affix gradient patterns (see p. 3 therein); however, they only conceal the fact that there is no feasible way to derive the degrees from the consonantal affix values.

Is it that bad? Consider the reverse: all affixes are perfectly regular. This makes Vx pretty useless as a slot. One important vocalic slot is wasted just for precising the degree the affix. Even if it's more irregular, I think it's more efficient (from a cognitive standpoint) to:

• have a globally regular Gradient with a clear progression from Deg 1 to Deg 9
• allowing irregular connotations in Degrees

The degree assignments are predominantly pragmatics-driven

Is it that bad?

Some VxCs are pretty interesting, like PWF (part to whole functional metaphor). It seems convenient to me to be able to quickly derivate such part to whole metaphors.

Though I agree with you, many VxCs are just bag-of-words at best, and do not seem useful at all.

having no semantic impact, do not correspond to any root in any way, nor under any mapping

Okay this is bad.

This is unacceptable: an ideal Ithkuilic language would ideally restrict its irregular syntactic affixes to a minimum

I agree, but the only syntactically irregular affix is, IMHO, TPF. (DCD and SQP are weird, but do not introduce new syntax, it changes only the meaning of the surrounding syntax, so this is not as bad as TPF) As for COO and friends, I don't worship with JQ's adverbial interpretation of connectives, but it is coherent and interesting.

In addition, it is a great drawback that only those roots which John Quijada has considered to render as affixes can be used as affixes, with all other roots only appliable via incorporation or periphrasis.

Agreed. We need a general mean to make Cr and Cs work together. Even if, as I've said above, I don't think removing all suffixes with irregular gradients will make the language better / more usable..

Anyway I'm also dubious about the solution you propose replacing Degree by Case-Acc'.

I don't think it will work because in order to be morpho-phonologically efficient, we have to use very few structural morphemes. But using Case takes a lot of space.. Moreover, Case has too much features for what we need. We don't need 70 Cases for just applying functions to other functions, and gaining a new function (an affix) as the result. Using all the power of Case can provide handy shortcuts, but morpho-phonologically, I don't think it will pass.

Instead, for combining Cr and Cs, I propose to make a new, trimmed version of Case based on Latejami.

Latejami only considers 4 roles: Agent, Patient, Focus (THM), and Agent-Patient (IND), but, contrary to Ithkuil, expands a bit their semantic, and rely on a powerful case-tag system for creating other roles (like Lojban's {fiho})

Let's work through an example, and build the suffix:

-rc DEG4: X number of seconds

with

-RV- S1: a second

-LG- S1: amount of elapsed time over which an event or state occurs

I assume that -LG- can be used that way:

> -LG-(verb) this-AFF second-THM two-COM

< ‘This takes 2 seconds’

ABS is not appropriate since it implies an agent. On the contrary, Latejami's Patient is more general and contains both ABS and AFF.

Let's first define a new Vx Slot, that will show, among other things:

The Four Latejami Role: A / P / F / AP; plus an "operator"/verb role
    ×
Type 1 / 2 / 3
    ×
Stem 1 / 2 / 3
    ×
return / applied

So -rc DEG4 is modelled as:

P-return-RV-(Stem:1)-F-applied-operator-(LG-Stem:1)

where P-return is a value of this new Vx which shows that the thing to which this suffix is applied

• plays the Patient role in the relation described by -LG-Stem:1
• is "returned" after the application of the suffix (the formative still refers to it after)

where F-applied-operator is a value of this new Vx which shows that RV-(Stem:1) is the Focus argument of LG-(Stem:1), the "operator" (verb) of this suffix

With only four cases to consider, there will be enough morphological space to show other interesting things like Type or Stem (and maybe other things like skewers's Closure).

However, reforming VxCs as we currently know them will be a massive task Many of them are based on simple concepts (they don't require the trick described above based on Latejami's), e.g. FRQ; so Cr roots should have clear semantics right from the start if we want to use them as Cs. For those that could use the Latejami's trick described above, things will get messy quickly. For example, it is possible to generate the suffix RPN Deg1 "slow-paced repetition at regular intervals" as the application of "... repetition at ... intervals" on "slow" and "regular" but this will not be verbose only if "regular" and "slow" have their dedicated roots and Stems.

[uakci]

So, Opening Statement: the VxCs proposal was a sort-of afterthought. While I still believe that it’s entirely feasible to get by with the second row of cases + root-derived Cs, the idea—as I presented it—is rough. If we work something sensible out, we can file a new RFC.

To recap, my main gripe with VxC(s) affixes is that whenever one wishes to include such an affix in a formative of theirs, they must go through this ‘let’s see if I remember this correctly’ moment, where they check:

1. if the affix corresponds to the same-sounding root (e.g., affix -x is in concord with root -X-, but -lḑ—‘trivalent polarity’—has nil to do with -LḐ- —tree.);
2. which pattern the affix belongs to;
3. if irregular, if you happen to remember the exact values for each degree (-šv, -ct, … are cool, but you must understand that it’s a burden on one’s linguistic mind).

allowing irregular connotations in Degrees

This would be allowed: ‘Affix degrees are replaced with Case accessors (either the second row of Cases or all Cases); save for a handful of grammatically prevalent operator-like affixes (such as COO and TPF, which it should be noted may at any time be recast into Categories of their own), all consonantal affix values name the same semantic content as that of the corresponding root values.’ Of course, a design which minimizes the amount of irregularity required to get by pragmatically is most desirable.

I agree, but the only syntactically irregular affix is, IMHO, TPF.

You really think that’s the only problem humanity’s got to solve? lol

(Jokes aside: there’s a whole gradient of irregularity across the affix lexicon. It’s enough that the ‘linear gradient’ types of affixes—such as -x—are already irregular in a way, since Degrees 1 and 9 represent excess.)

As for COO and friends, I don't worship with JQ's adverbial interpretation of connectives, but it is coherent and interesting.

I think it’s clever in that it doesn’t require any more of the language to provision—i.e., no need for a separate part-of-speech that is the conjunction. (Though both in 2011 and in 2020, you can extract the COO into an adjunct, and then you can pretend you’re a natlang.)

Anyway I'm also dubious about the solution you propose replacing Degree by Case-Acc'.

It works for an overwhelming majority of cases, just like 2011’s Schematic Format covers 90% of Format usage. Agreed, though, 90% ≠ 100%, so on to your suggestion(s):

Latejami only considers 4 roles: Agent, Patient, Focus (THM), and Agent-Patient (IND), but, contrary to Ithkuil, expands a bit their semantic, and rely on a powerful case-tag system for creating other roles (like Lojban's {fiho})

Watch your mouth ;) Lojban’s {fi’o} is utter shit, and its sole existence shows the profound weakness that lurks within the BAI. But moving on:

[My myself’s note: I’m responding sequentially, so, since right now I’m yet to read your proposal in full, but have seen trimmings, I can say that I’m excited. Now imagine layering a temporal axis on this post that goes along it lengthwise, from the top to the bottom, hehe.]

-LG-(verb) this-AFF second-THM two-COM

I’d say: LG-(verb) this-ABS two-THM second-PAR, or «algalá rre aksal urvalui». (AFF is wrong here without fail—it refers to (affective) experiencing.)

ABS is not appropriate since it implies an agent.

Quite the opposite: intransitive verbs in Ithkuil can be ABS or IND.

On the contrary, Latejami's Patient is more general and contains both ABS and AFF.

So if this is the reason why you decided to use Latejami’s case roles rather than Ithkuil’s, and my reasoning above is correct, then I do recommend returning to the appropriate Ithkuil cases: THM, ABS, ERG, IND. Regardless, I liked the parabole. :)

Stem 1 / 2 / 3

Without Designation?

[proposal]

This is interesting… I totally overlooked the fact that in many cases, we’re dealing with something resembling a transistor (physically). I see where your proposal is going, so let me propose a clearer version:

For base meaning B (this can be a root, or a meaning that has been picked out by affix transformations prior to this one—in general, the meaning that we’re operating on), entry case C, root-with-Stem R, and exit case D, the application of the affix -C/D-R on B means exactly the following: the D party of a/the R state/action with B being the C party. The entry and exit cases may be sourced from an abridged set, but they may as well be allowed to be any one case.

Your example, if copied over to my interpretation, would be -ABS/THM-RV1—the Theme of -RV- Stem 1 with the base meaning being the Absolutive party.

Thoughts?

[mklcp]

lḑ—‘trivalent polarity’—has nil to do with -LḐ- —tree

Argh, I thought we said to JQ not to do this

-šv, -ct, … are cool

Yes, and I think it's cool of an ihtkuilic language to have overprecise suffixes, like

out of a sense of social or personal obligation despite it being unpleasant or having negative consequences

but you must understand that it’s a burden on one’s linguistic mind

This argument is good by itself, but

• note that, compared to natlangs, TNIL requires far less things to remember
• I wouldn't mind learning cool irregular suffixes, like -šv

(many are still horrible, like -kc Edible or Autonomous Plant Parts/Components, and I just randomly scrolled and picked the first I've seen)

You really think that’s the only problem humanity’s got to solve? lol

Yeah I really think that. You can read it in my post, I've precisely used the words the only problem humanity’s got to solve. Unless you mix up this and being the only syntactically irregular affix

I said that, because TPF requires special parsing rules, and no semantic interpretation will ever change that. As I've said, this is not the case for COO.

Watch your mouth ;) Lojban’s {fi’o} is utter shit, and its sole existence shows the profound weakness that lurks within the BAI. But moving on:

Agreed x)

(Jokes aside: there’s a whole gradient of irregularity across the affix lexicon. It’s enough that the ‘linear gradient’ types of affixes—such as -x—are already irregular in a way, since Degrees 1 and 9 represent excess.)

Worse, some suffixes break the gradient, like -t, which should be type C For a useful concept as -t, it might be tolerated to allocate a short consonantal form. But that doesn't explain why JQ didn't use ř..

It works for an overwhelming majority of cases, just like 2011’s Schematic Format covers 90% of Format usage. Agreed, though, 90% ≠ 100%, so on to your suggestion(s):

My point is that we don't need that much semantic precision. I'm sure you had studied latejami, and you may have noticed how he conflates many Ithkuil cases into A, P and F. But I'm convinced this does not become incoherent, because in their core arguments, many verbal concepts only require a handful of transrelative cases.

My proposal could be rephrased that way: we need morpho-phonological space, we don't need 81 cases worth of precision, and Latejami proposes a model were only 4 cases are needed. Let's use that, and use the remaining space for showing Type, etc.

-LG-(verb) this-AFF second-THM two-COM

I’d say: LG-(verb) this-ABS two-THM second-PAR, or «algalá rre aksal urvalui».

(AFF is wrong here without fail—it refers to (affective) experiencing.)

Yeah I agree but as you can read in AGOI

the ABSOLUTIVE identifies the semantic role of PATIENT of an agential action, where the agent-initiator is a different party than the patient who undergoes the resulting action. Note that in sentences with patient subjects, the agent or instrument of agency need not be overtly expressed. 

So ABS always imply an agent. Even if it used intransitively.

So I don't disagree with

Quite the opposite: intransitive verbs in Ithkuil can be ABS or IND.

but this misses the point

This is problematic for me, which is why I used AFF, even if AFF has also an incorrect semantic..

So if this is the reason why you decided to use Latejami’s case roles rather than Ithkuil’s, and my reasoning above is correct, then I do recommend returning to the appropriate Ithkuil cases: THM, ABS, ERG, IND. Regardless, I liked the parabole. :)

So no. THM, ABS, ERG, IND 's semantic are too precise FOR MERGING Cs and Cr (for a normal use as a clause-case, they provide interesting precisions that give to Ithkuil a part of its charm).

For the goal of merging Cs and Cr, they should be generalized for ABS and ERG, and specified for THM:

• THM is always a referrent in relation with the Patient, or with the Agent and the Patient, but for describing an existential state, you would use Patient instead of THM I say that because JQ doesn' do that:

In the STEP THREE: Analysis/Derivation Using Ithkuil Morphological Categories of the translation of the opening Line from Anna Karenina, you can read that

CASE: The word ‘family’ will be the “subject” of a verb complex meaning ‘manifests happy behavior’. The appropriate semantic role for the subject of a non-causal descriptive state is as CONTENT, shown by the default OBLIQUE [OBL]case in Ithkuil.

But here, following Latejami's semantic, "family" should be Patient, because one of its caracteristic that the families endure are described.

In Latejami, THM is always related to the Patient (at least, also the Agent for action verbs)

• ERG is generalized to include: ERG, EFF, STM
• ABS is generalized to include: AFF, DAT

Without Designation?

ah yes

Your example, if copied over to my interpretation, would be -ABS/THM-RV1—the Theme of -RV- Stem 1 with the base meaning being the Absolutive party.

Correct.

Your explanation is indeed far more clearer than mine, but it does not cover everything

The "returned / applied" distinction covers the fact, that, either the entry case or the exit case (more precisely the result of applying B and R with cases C and D) can be the new B for the outer scope.

 

Final words: my proposal is just the same as your, but with latejami's roles for efficiency.

But more generally, the definition of ERG and ABS should be changed, it is bad that ABS always imply an Agent, as it makes it too precise.

[porpoiseless]

I like the extensive case list, though I think it could be redesigned with case-accessors & their inverses in mind. The difference between EFF and ERG is important. (For instance, it marks the difference between manslaughter and murder.)

And if case is doing even more heavy lifting (by being one of the ways we instantiate stems from roots), all the more reason to make it more powerful. Perhaps we don't need 70 of them, but there are distinctions which are meaningful in human life and culture that I think are worth pointing out with case.

[uakci]

@melopee:

Yes, and I think it's cool of an ihtkuilic language to have overprecise suffixes,

The over-precision can be expressed in the lexicon. Like the emotion roots. Like ‘to do something unpleasant because of social obligation’. (Also note that that’s ‘social obligation’ + some personal perspective affix.)

I wouldn't mind learning cool irregular suffixes, like -šv

A rational amount of them—okay. But some offenders are, like wombat likes to point out, extremely Anglo-centric, only serving as a nifty shortcut in English translations. (Then we have people coming to us and saying shit like ‘wOW, ithKUIL is SO inFORmAtION deNSe!!’. Exactly what benchmark-driven development means.)

And extending this point, in general, to have affixes whose degrees you can’t express natively without using those affixes—that’s the definition of hackish. JQ uses them as a quick-’n’-dirty hole patching tool. As if roots weren’t enough!…

Unless you mix up this and being the only syntactically irregular affix

That’s what I meant. Sorry it didn’t convey itself too well through the joke. And there are far more irregular affixes—it’s just that some are more dissatisfying than others.

For a useful concept as -t, it might be tolerated to allocate a short consonantal form.

Yes. But there should be abridgement. And self-restraint. JQ doesn’t possess these traits, I’m afraid.

[Full-time shitting and pissing on JQ—how are we doing?]

My proposal could be rephrased that way: we need morpho-phonological space, we don't need 81 cases worth of precision, and Latejami proposes a model were only 4 cases are needed. Let's use that, and use the remaining space for showing Type, etc.

Ithkuil greatly benefits from this sort of precision because prepositional phrases don’t translate too well to Ithkuil (they require a whole separate formative, which it is then somewhat hard to connect to with the complement of the prepositional phrase… It’s a mess.) On that note, we might try adverbial affixes: those which determine the semantic relationship between the formative and the clause it’s enclosed within—displacing Case. Now this would rock!

So ABS always imply an agent.

Even if it used intransitively.

Several problems with this:

• AGOI, quite indeed, defines ABS in conjunction with ERG, but this is no longer obvious in the TNIL documentation.
• (Either way, I’d consider myself to be a proponent of ERG-less ABS.)
• It makes 100% sense to say that a human is affected by their death; an eyebrow-raising assertion, that an animal is (affectively!) affected by their size; a completely untenable absurdity, that an event ‘goes through’ the emotional implications of having a certain duration.
• JQ is fond of using AFF where there isn’t an ERG, but (1) all the examples I know from the website involve those kinds of parties which can undergo ‘affective responses’, and (2) he specifically states the semantic roles associated with these cases in the TNIL docs (EXPERIENCER and PATIENT), which clears up any remaning confusion on that topic.

But indeed, it’s an irrelevant aside.

So no. THM, ABS, ERG, IND 's semantic are too precise FOR MERGING Cs and Cr

I dare disagree with that assessment. Moreover, they might be—to a degree—sufficient. And a carefully cherry-picked handful of Cases might be able to cover all feasible use cases.

but for describing an existential state, you would use Patient instead of THM

Also, I should get this in real quick: CTE is what you may be looking for.

The appropriate semantic role for the subject of a non-causal descriptive state is as CONTENT, shown by the default OBLIQUE [OBL]case in Ithkuil.

Yes, for a ‘degree of size’ kind of predicate, you would use the CONTENT semantic role—Thematic Case—and then Some Other Case for the measuree. And the Absolutive Case fits here nigh perfectly.

• ERG is generalized to include: ERG, EFF, STM

This is fair (outside of VxCs discussion).

• ABS is generalized to include: AFF, DAT

This is not okay.

1. AFF is a specialized ABS—the difference between ‘I am hit’ and ‘I go through the hitting’. It’s somewhat gibberish to use ABS with AFF when the ABS is not related to the AFF (AGOI gives the example ‘I am hit in the foot’—the foot is already implied to belong to the AFF party, so AFF and ABS may not be so unrelated after all! Though agreed: the fact that ABS and AFF can mean something else on their own than they do together is unsettling to me.)
2. DAT is completely separate from ABS.

In addition, DAT will be absolutely useless for affixes. It’s already rarely used in conversation. (AGOI suggests DAT for possessives, but that’s just wrong—it’s as if the existence of a book was meant for me, and circumstantial possession is less than that. In 2020, regular Possessive Cases should be fine—as in, book-(verbal) me-PRP).

The "returned / applied" distinction covers the fact, that, either the entry case or the exit case (more precisely the result of applying B and R with cases C and D) can be the new B for the outer scope.

If I understand correctly: this can be handled with CTE.

But more generally, the definition of ERG and ABS should be changed, it is bad that ABS always imply an Agent, as it makes it too precise.

Yeah…

Final words: my proposal is just the same as your, but with latejami's roles for efficiency.

How about this:

1. There’s a Curated Set of Cases—say, CTE, THM, ABS, ERG, IND, and some other important ones, possibly (a sufficient set—and I claim that these five are quite sufficient already, although I may be missing some)—which are given easy V forms (like a or ai in terms of complexity/ease-of-use).
2. All other Case combos are a V’V-like conjunction.

Also, this should become an RFC of its own, nay?

@porpoiseless:

And if case is doing even more heavy lifting (by being one of the ways we instantiate stems from roots), all the more reason to make it more powerful. Perhaps we don't need 70 of them, but there are distinctions which are meaningful in human life and culture that I think are worth pointing out with case.

Yes! Totally.

[mklcp]

@porpoiseless

The difference between EFF and ERG is important. (For instance, it marks the difference between manslaughter and murder.)

It is important, but do we really need it for just combining two roots into a suffix?

@uakci

The over-precision can be expressed in the lexicon. Like the emotion roots.

I hope we will not run short of root space then.. and I don't consider using 4-consonants cluster as a solution

extremely Anglo-centric, only serving as a nifty shortcut in English translations

Yeah, I particularly hate the linguistic hedge things

On that note, we might try adverbial affixes: those which determine the semantic relationship between the formative and the clause it’s enclosed within—displacing Case. Now this would rock!

Like fiho or toaq's preposition

JQ is fond of using AFF where there isn’t an ERG, but (1) all the examples I know from the website involve those kinds of parties which can undergo ‘affective responses’,

I haven't reread the website in a while, but in

https://www.reddit.com/r/Ithkuil/comments/9w08ef/lexicosemantics_of_verbs_in_the_new_language_im/

you can find

‘sleep’-STA she-AFF TRANSLATION: ” She is asleep / She is sleeping.” [no agent/agency implied]

Also, I should get this in real quick: CTE is what you may be looking for.

No, at least for what I understand. For me, CTE is a hook for the verb as a whole. It is the "verb case" you talked to me about. If you use CTE for describing an existential state, it means you are the state/event/action described by the verb. So e.g.,

blue-(verb) you-CTE

would mean

you are a state/event/action of [sth] being blue

and not "you are blue" (which is what I call an existential state)

It’s somewhat gibberish to use ABS with AFF when the ABS is not related to the AFF (AGOI gives the example ‘I am hit in the foot

Yes, but this is not what I propose. I propose to

• keep ABS and AFF as they are for clause-case and role-case
• merge ABS and AFF for suffix-case

DAT is completely separate from ABS.

Yes, but you can coherently generalize ABS into containing the meaning of DAT, like Latejami does (relevant section: http://rickmor.x10.mx/lexical_semantics.html#S4_3_8)

In addition, DAT will be absolutely useless for affixes. It’s already rarely used in conversation.

Agreed, which is one more reason to merge it with ABS into a new Patient case with generalize semantic

(AGOI suggests DAT for possessives, but that’s just wrong—it’s as if the existence of a book was meant for me, and circumstantial possession is less than that. In 2020, regular Possessive Cases should be fine—as in, book-(verbal) me-PRP).

Yeah that's just a bloat

If I understand correctly: this can be handled with CTE.

How is that?

After rethinking about this, there might be a real use for this feature: let's try with -ABS/THM-RV1 and let's use r to indicate which case is returned:

two-ABSr/THM-RV1

would mean "two seconds"

but what would mean

two-ABS/THM-RV1

and

two-ABS/THMr-RV1

?

I thought this was a clean way to distinguish Modular from Casual suffix application (skewers's terminology for the other who read that)

All other Case combos are a V’V-like conjunction.

Or V(y/w)V, but we will decide the general phonoaesthetic of the morphopho later

(NB: I loathe glottal stops, having one per word between two V is already enough for me)

 

Okay so seems we agree on the general idea. Now for starting the Cs-Cr merge, how about the following plan:

• analyze all suffixes:
• split them into relevant concepts that will be allocated into roots (new ones or already existing ones)

e.g. for several hundred thousand years should be split into the concepts

years

hundred thousand

x1 happens/is for x2 (units of time)

• setup a reduced case list for combining Cr into affixes
• test if all existing suffixes can be regenerated with that

I had that hunch before, but now it very clear that the result will be extremely verbose.

So, conclusion of my conclusion:

• It's worth for an ithkuilic language to allow Cr in Cs, maybe via the means we are dicussing
• We'll never get rid of suffixes, because it's too hard to be shorter than a simple vocalic cluster + a consonantic cluster

Also, this should become an RFC of its own, nay?

Yeah

[uakci]

It is important, but do we really need it for just combining two roots into a suffix?

I hope we will not run short of root space then.. and I don't consider using 4-consonants cluster as a solution

Agreed. There is some balancing finesse going on here—and I wouldn’t mind merging case roles in order to hit that sweet spot. However, I consider the best solution to be one where a small set of cases gets short-and-easy forms, and all other combinations of cases—possibly not all cases, but a wider set either way—get composite forms. At the moment, I’m considering the set {CTE, THM, ABS, ERG, IND}, Cartesian-producted with itself, yielding 25 forms (that’s little in the world of TNIL—we have 36 ‘simple’ V values already, and they may exist more), and then that set × all cases, and all cases × that set, using some V’V shenanigans.

Like fiho or toaq's preposition

Ditto.

[…] you can find […]

The Affective Case is messed up. :angry: Let’s have it redefined clearly for Freetnil, eh?

I propose to

• keep ABS and AFF as they are for clause-case and role-case
• merge ABS and AFF for suffix-case

I disagree. With the right semantics for AFF—involuntary, affective experience—we can let go of it for affixes altogether.

After rethinking about this, there might be a real use for this feature […]

I’ve considered that already. :sunglasses: The second Case (exit Case) is the one that’s returned, always, so ‘two’-THM/ABS:‘second’ = ‘two seconds’ (‘two’ enters ‘second’ through the entry Case THM, then the returned—exit—Case is ABS), while ‘two’-ABS/THM:‘second’ = ‘the duration-of-seconds of that which is two’. Also, doubled Case—entry = exit—makes sense too: -ABS/ABS:‘second’ = ‘…[considered] as an event which takes an amount of seconds’, or -IND/IND:‘crime’ = ‘…involved in a crime’. (This displaces the need for Incorporation—at least partially—this is awesome!!!)

I thought this was a clean way to distinguish Modular from Casual suffix application (skewers's terminology for the other who read that)

Sort of: when the entry Case isn’t the same as the exit Case, then we’re taking out something else than what we’re putting in—Modular. And when the entry and exit Case is one and the same, we sort of pass the base meaning through an additional assertion—Casual. [Anybody not familiar with Skewers: disregard this.]

Now for starting the Cs-Cr merge, how about the following plan:

• analyze all suffixes:
• split them into relevant concepts that will be allocated into roots (new ones or already existing ones)

That’s more or less what my secret plan was. I plan to begin this kind of work soon (it’d be a pain to do it as a group, so please leave it to me for now).

(Your decomposition is good—well, almost, because there should be some atomic way to convert an abstract unit—like ‘year’—to that which, when measured in its terms, is the unit—‘something which lasts for a year’. This would be wonderful as a Case—I may add that in soon; it’d also offset the semantic gap created through removing the Objective specification from the duration roots—which meant exactly the above.)

((Edit: Then again, the example that you gave is sort of cheaty, as is Ithkuil’s handling of orders of magnitude. If we don’t make numbers in general succinct, the corresponding suffixes won’t be either.))

I had that hunch before, but now it very clear that the result will be extremely verbose.

Eh.

An RFC is in the works. I hope that I present my case well. Until then!

[uakci]

(Oh, I missed this:

No, at least for what I understand. For me, CTE is a hook for the verb as a whole.

Yes. (CTE)-blue-(verbal) you-CTE would be ‘you are a state of being blue’; ABS-blue-(verbal) you-CTE—‘you are blue [= something that’s blue]’. Then you could use non-CTE cases in the second example if the root meaning—after the Case access—is still a state/action, so EFF-die-(verbal) you-ERG would be sensible and mean ‘you did something which initiated another’s death’, while STA-die-(verbal) you-ERG—not so much (the one-who-dies-or-is-killed is not a state/event).

In logicspeak, the examples above would be (with ∃ standing for any semantically applicable quantifier, and the syntax x CAS y meaning ‘x fulfils case role CAS in event/state/action y’, with CTE replaced with an equals sign) ∃blueness. blueness = you, ∃blueness. ∃x. x ABS blueness ∧ x = you, ∃death. ∃x. x EFF death ∧ you ERG x, ∃death. ∃x. x STA death ∧ you ERG x. (And since ∃blueness. ∃x. x ABS blueness ∧ x = you ⇔ ∃blueness. you ABS blueness: ABS-blue-(verbal) you-CTE is identical to (CTE)-blue-(verbal) you-ABS, up to pragmatic intent.)

CTE is essential to my affix concept since it gives you a means of omitting a Case access. Which is useful at times: -STM/CTE:‘feel’ ‘the feeling induced by X’; -CTE/STM:‘feel’ ‘the stimulus of X-as-a-(state-of)-feeling’.

This really needs clarifying in the RFC.)

[mklcp]

CTE is essential to my affix concept since it gives you a means of omitting a Case access. Which is useful at times: -STM/CTE:‘feel’ ‘the feeling induced by X’; -CTE/STM:‘feel’ ‘the stimulus of X-as-a-(state-of)-feeling’.

I would use THM here, not CTE But then, for "I love you", I would also use THM for "you"..

[uakci]

@melopee:

I would use THM here, not CTE

That actually depends on the content (pun intended). If by ‘feeling’ you mean ‘state of feeling’, you should use CTE; if you mean ‘the internal qualia/content that is felt’, you should indeed use THM.

I can only blame myself for giving a bad example. Here’s a better one:

• THM-‘hill’ = (there/something/X is) a hill
• THM-‘hill’-ABS/THM:‘degree of size’ = a/the hill’s degree-of-size; how big a/the hill is
• THM-‘hill’-ABS/CTE:‘degree of size’ = the state of a/the hill having a degree-of-size; that a hill is however big or small; the fact that the hill has a size / is measurable

But then, for "I love you", I would also use THM for "you"..

I’d agree. But there's a cool distinction to be made here: ‘I love you for your body’ would have ‘your body’ AFF STM and ‘you’ THM. Or, ‘This clown frightens me of darkness’ (this is a weird thing to say in English, but hold it) – ‘clown’ AFF STM, ‘darkness’ THM.

[uakci]

Also, yesterday, @porpoiseless and I discussed a potential ‘complement’ Case which would tag a secondary theme, complementing the primary theme (THM) without physical involvement (X is related to Y, X is a measure of Y, etc.). This may cure our ABS vs. AFF troubles.

[mklcp]

Also, yesterday, @porpoiseless and I discussed a potential ‘complement’ Case which would tag a secondary theme, complementing the primary theme (THM) without physical involvement (X is related to Y, X is a measure of Y, etc.). This may cure our ABS vs. AFF troubles.

I don't understand how. Plus this is pretty similar to the new meaning of STM

I can only blame myself for giving a bad example. Here’s a better one:

No, this example is problematic, since now THM has two meanings that should be split, IMO:

• the focus of the relation with the patient (e.g. the entity the patient is aiming/focusing at/on), i.e. Latejami's focus
• the content the relation, regardless of its realization

So "my love for you"

• my: AFF
• (for) you: THM focus
• love: THM content
• my love for you: your CTE

I would rename your no-op case CTE to sth else, and use CTE for my "THM content", and keep "THM" for my THM focus.

I’d agree. But there's a cool distinction to be made here: ‘I love you for your body’ would have ‘your body’ AFF and ‘you’ THM. Or, ‘This clown frightens me of darkness’ (this is a weird thing to say in English, but hold it) – ‘clown’ AFF, ‘darkness’ THM.

I don't understand anything here. How is "I'd agree" related to what I've said? When I said

But then, for "I love you", I would also use THM for "you"..

my goal was to highlight that the two uses of THM

• "you" in "I love you"
• "sth" in "I feel sth"

might be incoherent.

For me, "sth" in "I feel sth" should be what I called "THM content"

Moreover, why do you use AFF for you in ‘I love you for your body’ AFF should be for "I" !?

[uakci]

I don't understand how. Plus this is pretty similar to the new meaning of STM

‘2 km is the size of this mountain’ would have ‘2 km’ in the THM and ‘this mountain’ in this new case.

It’s a bad idea to use physical cases for describing incorporeal interrelations. JQ’s new STM is just a dirty patch.

So "my love for you"

I don’t understand the context. ‘Love’ would be the verb/head of the noun phrase, would it not?

The focus is either the content or some other case. It’s not a case in and of itself. Besides, take a look at what Morphology says:

The (usually inanimate) party which is a participant to the verbal predicate which does not undergo any tangible change of state. Semantic role: CONTENT.

That makes it pretty clear, I think, and also why we should have a ‘second’ CONTENT.

my goal was to highlight that the two uses of THM

In the first case, THM is the content of the emotion. In the second case, THM is the emotion itself. Nothing wrong in here—this is how those predicates are defined.

Moreover, why do you use AFF for you in ‘I love you for your body’

AFF should be for "I" !?

My bad: I meant STM.

[mklcp]

‘2 km is the size of this mountain’ would have ‘2 km’ in the THM and ‘this mountain’ in this new case.

Ah, ok. I hope then that the distinction between the primary and the secondary THM will be clear for each root then (e.g. here that secondary THM tags the amount of size for the root "is.size.of")

I don’t understand the context. ‘Love’ would be the verb/head of the noun phrase, would it not?

Yeah, but with a "THM-content" case-accessor.

It will be clearer with a full proposition, even if it's a bit weird in english:

"I love you with intensity"

—›

• I: AFF
• you: THM-focus
• with intensity: THM-content

THM-content is intended to refer to content of the state/action. Not the action seen as an event or as a spatial/temporal reification/activization, but more as what it consists of from an abstract point of view.

This is more precise than your CTE, which tags the meaning of the root. This THM-content is complementary to the new cases that show how the event/state/action described by the root is embodied, like Methodic or Material.

In the first case, THM is the content of the emotion. In the second case, THM is the emotion itself. Nothing wrong in here—this is how those predicates are defined.

:)

With my personal conlang experiment, I noticed that I didin't have the same use for Cases than Ithkuil. I precisely don't like that Nothing wrong in here—this is how those predicates are defined. part If Cases are defined by their semantic, then I feel it's wrong to have THM refers to the loved one for "love" and to the feeling for "feel". If THM is the other party for one root, it should the other party for every root.

[uakci]

Ah, ok. I hope then that the distinction between the primary and the secondary THM will be clear for each root then (e.g. here that secondary THM tags the amount of size for the root "is.size.of")

It is already somewhat clear from the semantics of each root—‘be a degree of size’ has the degree of size as its primary semantic content.

THM-content is intended to refer to content of the state/action. Not the action seen as an event or as a spatial/temporal reification/activization, but more as what it consists of from an abstract point of view.

This makes no sense to me. How is what you’re describing different from the new Essential case? And then, your example suggests the use of Functive…

If Cases are defined by their semantic, then I feel it's wrong to have THM refers to the loved one for "love" and to the feeling for "feel". If THM is the other party for one root, it should the other party for every root.

This does make sense. Take a look:

• ‘to feel an emotion’: ‘emotion’ is the CONTENT (Thematic Case).
• ‘to feel love’: ‘love’ is not the CONTENT, as it’s embedded in the meaning of the root. What is the thing that’s loved is.

(To have ‘love’ in ‘to feel love’ be the CONTENT would make the that root redundant to the ‘to feel an emotion’ root. We assume that specialized roots take on the semantics of their specializations, at least in a majority of cases.)

If you wanted to use the former root—‘to experience an emotion’—to say something like ‘I feel love for you’, you could do something like

(CTE)-‘experience emotion’-(verbal) 1m-AFF (CTE)-‘love’-THM 2m-CCn-THM*.

But this is pointless, as ‘love’ is an emotion/affective experience already [1], so you could just say

(CTE)-‘love’-(verbal) 1m-AFF 2m-THM*,

and skip the awkward ‘THM* of THM’ bit.

(Any instance of `THMabove signifies aTHMthat may be replaced with aSTM`, depending on the exact semantic intent.)*

---

[1] Because of this, you could even say

(CTE)-‘experience emotion’-(verbal) 1m-AFF (CTE)-‘love’-CTE 2m-CCn-THM*

—literally, ‘my affective experience is the love for you’. Or, to highlight the redundancy in the example: ‘my affective experience is an affective experience of love towards you’. Drink responsibly.

[mklcp]

This makes no sense to me. How is what you’re describing different from the new Essential case? And then, your example suggests the use of Functive…

Yeah, but I don't really like your Essential case. My THM-content is like Essential but without the "reason / profound cause behind sth" part. It is also different from the Functive in that it does not tag the whole event, it just specifies the content of the event, what the event is "made of" from an abstract point of view.

This does make sense. Take a look:

Yeah this makes sense, but this is not how I envision case. Even if I do think your approach is more pragmatic and will be more useful in ithkuil

[uakci]

Yeah, but I don't really like your Essential case. My THM-content is like Essential but without the "reason / profound cause behind sth" part.

Eh, I think my Essential is as little ill-defined that you can get. ‘Reason / profound cause’ is only a partial description; the RFC reads ‘ideal/intended cause-and-purpose or profound meaning’. Essential concerns the fundamental state/action that the base state is an example, manifestation, realization, of actualized means of. So for ‘feel love’, ‘have affection for/need to care for’; for ‘eat’—‘nourish’; for ‘clothing as self-expression’—‘self-expression’; for ‘set on fire’—‘make heat’. For some X’s, SNT-X is contained within its cause, or within its purpose; for others, it’s more complicated. Now go ahead and define your ‘THM-content’ (please find a better name for it).

Yeah this makes sense, but this is not how I envision case. Even if I do think your approach is more pragmatic and will be more useful in ithkuil

How do you envision Case?

[mklcp]

How do you envision Case?

More like accessors to a common argument structure shared by all verbs. Not that this argument structure is inherent or natural, it should be designed when creating a conlang. So I don't like that, for example, for "love", THM refers to the loved one, while for "feel", it refers to the feeling. Instead, I would have a case for "other entity targeted by the subject's action/state" and "content of the action/state".

Now go ahead and define your ‘THM-content’ (please find a better name for it).

I don't feel a need for it, as I initially envisioned to use CTE; but if you insist, let call it "GiST".

GST-feel would be "(a) feeling"

GST-love would be "(a) love", as in "my love for you" (= what my love for you is really, regardless of how I express it or how an act/event/state embodies it)

This is not a case-frame.

love-FRAMED I-AFF You-THM would be "that I love you" legitimate-(verb) love-FRAMED-THM I-AFF You-THM would be "it is legitimate that I love you"

Here, keep in mind that "-THM" in "love-FRAMED-THM" marks the role of the case frame in the main clause. It does not access any argument of "love". So to say that "my love for you is legitimate", you would use legitimate-(verb) GST-love-FRAMED-THM I-AFF You-THM

In fact, this GST in kinda like SNT, maybe they are the same. But I wasn't sure since "Reason / profound cause" seems important in SNT's definition. On the contrary, I thought of GST as opposed to Methodic and Material.

[uakci]

Now I don’t understand how this GST case of yours is any different from CTE. ._. You can definitely say legitimate-(verb) (CTE)-love-FRAMED-THM 1m-AFF 2m-THM to mean ‘my loving of you is legitimate’—which surely is a legitimate way to say it. I’d need more examples of this case to be able to form a judgement—could you give me more examples?

But I wasn't sure since "Reason / profound cause" seems important in SNT's definition.

I feel like I should bring this up again: the definition is ‘ideal/intended cause-and-purpose or profound meaning’. There is no focus on the reason part—not any more than there is on the result part. Grr.

[how you envision Case]

I really wish this is how this worked, but it’s impossible. It relates to an idea that I’ve been flaunting recently: that some case roles in a relation are essential to it. What this amounts to is that:

• when I use ERG and ABS on ‘to attack’, there is no second thought about the nature of the relationship between the two tagged parties and the relation itself—the offender and the victim are baked into the semantic frame;
• when I use ERG on ‘a degree of size’—a case which only ‘binds’ its THM role, plus a couple others—I need to actively interpret the meaning of the Case at hand to figure out a plausible translation: ‘X made Y that big’.

In other words, root concepts bind case roles because their wide semantics fits the narrow semantics of the concepts. Sadly, this is lexical information; without it, things like ‘speak’-(verbal) 1m-AFF would be ambiguous between ‘I experience myself speaking’ and ‘I experience another speaking’. And so on, and so forth. This could be remedied by giving Cases extremely precise semantics—but that’d get dangerously close to positional cases. Worth a shot anyway.