A causes P to undergo a change of state by APPLYING N to P. A causes P to undergo a change of state by ADDING N to P. A causes P to undergo a change of state by GIVING N to P. and for locative nouns: A causes P to undergo a change of state by MOVING/BRINGING P to N. Here are the examples again with the "using" wording: Prototype Noun A/P-d verb Semantics ---- ---------- --------- salt to salt A changes state of P using salt e.g. He salted the stew. seed to seed A changes state of P using seed(s) e.g. He seeded the garden. bed to 'bed' A changes state of P using bed(s) e.g. She put the children to bed. tree to 'tree' A changes state of P using tree(s) e.g. They planted trees in the pasture. storm to 'storm' A changes state of P using storm(s) e.g. Mother nature hit us with a storm. brain to 'brain' A changes state of P using brain(s) e.g. The scientist gave the android a brain. oven to 'oven' A changes state of P using oven(s) e.g. He baked a cake. land to land A changes state of P using land e.g. The pilot landed the airplane. glue to glue A changes state of P using glue e.g. He glued the envelope. boat to 'boat' A changes state of P using boat(s) e.g. The crew boarded the passengers. pencil to pencil A changes state of P using pencil(s) e.g. He penciled the sign with graffiti. wharf to 'wharf' A changes state of P using wharf(wharves) e.g. He moored the rowboat (to a wharf). ghost to 'ghost' A changes state of P using ghost(s) e.g. The sorcerer caused the house to become haunted. Thus, an alternative statement of the semantics would be 'A uses N to cause a change of state in P'. Similarly, we can use the other paraphrases to obtain the same results: 'A applies N to P', 'A adds N to P', and 'A gives N to P, etc. Having several ways of stating the semantics of this construction will be very helpful, since it will allow us to clarify the meaning of a word if there is any ambiguity. Note that many of the verbs can take an oblique focus argument, since they can indicate a change of relationship between the patient and some other entity. Here are some examples (where the focus is capitalized): We 'treed' three acres WITH ELM AND OAK. They landed the plane ON RUNWAY THREE. He penciled the sign WITH GRAFFITI. I glued the envelope TO THE BOX. Considering our earlier discussions on serial verbs and case tags, it should be no surprise that the normally locative prepositions "ON" and "TO" actually introduce focus arguments. This usage will become even clearer when we derive several locative case tags later. Note that the phrases using "WITH" seem to have an instrumental sense, but the sense of instrumentality is very weak. Here are some examples with REAL instruments: He penciled the sign WITH A PENCIL FROM HIS POCKET. or He penciled the sign with graffiti USING A PENCIL FROM HIS POCKET. He glued the envelope to the box WITH CARPENTERS' GLUE. In the above examples, the capitalized phrases are not foci, but are true instrumentals. The next step is to determine the state concept (i.e., the final state) associated with the A/P-d verb. Here are the results for the previous examples: Prototype Noun A/P-d verb State concept ---- ---------- ------------- salt to salt salty, having salt seed to seed having seed bed to 'bed' being in bed tree to 'tree' having trees storm to 'storm' experiencing a storm brain to 'brain' having a brain oven to 'oven' being baked or roasted land to land being on land glue to glue being glued boat to 'boat' being aboard a boat pencil to pencil having marks/writing made with a pencil wharf to 'wharf' being moored to a wharf ghost to 'ghost' being haunted, having ghosts In the above examples, I have intentionally avoided the use of passive-only forms (such as "landed" or "salted") in the description of the state concepts, because passives have a strong implication of agency which should not be present in the state concepts themselves. With these state concepts, we can now create all possible verb, adverb, and case tag forms just as we did earlier with basic verbs. Here are a few examples: salt -> A/P-d verb 'to salt', A/P-s verb 'to keep salty', P-d verb 'to get salty', P-s verb 'to be salty', P-s adjective 'salty' bed -> A/P-d verb 'to put to bed', AP-d verb 'to go to bed', P-s verb 'to be in bed', P-s adjective 'in bed' land -> A/P-d verb 'to land (e.g. plane)', AP-d [+F] verb 'to alight (e.g. bird) ', P-s adjective 'aground/on land' ghost -> P-d verb 'to become haunted', P-s verb 'to be haunted', P-s adjective 'haunted' And so forth. [Incidentally, in order to handle a sentence like "Seven evil ghosts haunted the old mansion", we need a reflexive voice alteration that changes the A/P/F-s verb to an AF/P-s verb. We'll discuss reflexives later.] Now, let's do a few REAL derivations using some of the nouns we derived earlier from the root "-gua-". First, though, we must add a new rule to our morphology that will allow us to convert a basic noun to a verb and to change its argument structure: A basic noun can be converted to a verb with a precise argument structure by simply adding the appropriate verb classifier after the noun classifier. For example, to change the basic noun "guasaida", meaning 'puffer/swellfish', to an A/P-d verb (classifier "-pu-"), we insert "-pu-" after the noun classifier "-sai-". Thus, the result would be "guasaipusi". Now, here are some real derivations: guasaida 'puffer' -> A/P-d guasaipusi 'to put puffers into/to populate with puffers' P-s adjective guasaiseno 'having or populated with puffers' guaniuda 'broth' -> A/P-d guaniupusi 'to add broth to' P-s adjective guaniuseno 'having broth/brothy' guapaida 'hydropower' -> A/P-d guapaipusi 'to apply hydropower to' P-s adjective guapaiseno 'water-powered' guafada 'water' -> A/P-d guafapusi 'to water' (e.g. to water a lawn) P-d guafapiasi 'to get wet' P-s adjective guafaseno 'wet' 3.4 USING VERB CLASSIFIERS WITH BASIC NOUN ROOTS In the previous section, we applied verb classifiers to COMPLETE nouns; i.e. nouns which contained a root PLUS a noun classifier. We should also be able to derive useful words by applying verb classifiers to a BARE noun root. The question then becomes: how do we interpret the result? In my opinion, the only practical choice we have is to use the root for its mnemonic value, as we did above. In this case, however, we should try to extract a STATE or ACTION CONCEPT that closely relates to the meaning of the noun root. For example, the root "-gua-" = 'water' could be used to represent either of the closely related state concepts 'wet' or 'liquid'. But since 'wet' has already been derived using the complete noun, we can use "-gua-" to represent 'liquid', a binary state with default class A/P-d: guasi=guapusi -> A/P-d verb: to liquify guasesi -> P-s verb: to be liquid guaseda -> P-s noun: liquid, fluid guaseno -> P-s adjective: liquid, fluid (= in a liquid state) guasepe -> P-s adverb: fluidly guapiasi -> P-d verb: to melt, to condense Note that "guapiasi" can mean either 'condense' (initial state is gaseous) or 'melt' (initial state is solid), since the verb itself does not imply any initial state. In order to capture the meaning of the English words exactly, we would need to specify an initial state (i.e. solid or gaseous). [We will discuss how to do this later. However, this specificity is almost never needed since we almost always know the initial state of the patient because of its inherent nature or from context (e.g. "The warm weather XXXed the snow" or "The steam slowly XXXed"). In fact, the only examples I can think of where such specificity might be needed are in chemistry, where chemical names are used which do not indicate a particular solid or gaseous state (e.g. "selenium" or "hydrogen chloride"). However, even in chemistry, the initial state is usually obvious from context.] Here is a list of some basic nouns and (possible) state and action concepts: water -> liquid man -> speaking dog -> barking sun -> light/bright/aglow fire -> hot snow -> white table -> supporting bed -> sleeping wall -> separating hand -> handling/manipulating house -> safe And so on. In effect, what we are doing here is giving two distinct but related meanings to each root. One meaning represents a basic noun (e.g. 'water') while the other meaning represents a basic verb (e.g. 'liquid'). Thus, the dictionary entry for a root in our sample language MAY have two components: one for use as a mnemonic with noun classifiers and the other for use as a precise state or action with verb classifiers. However, as we will see in the next section, some basic verb roots are best used "as is" when applying noun classifiers. 3.5 USING NOUN CLASSIFIERS WITH BASIC VERB ROOTS In the previous section, we used a basic noun root meaning 'water' to derive many other basic nouns. We also gave the same root the meaning 'liquid' for use with verb classifiers. How, though, should we deal with concepts that are inherently stative in nature. For example, would the root "teyo-" meaning 'knowing/knowledgeable' be very productive in basic noun derivations? Probably not. What, for example, would correspond to 'knowledgeable fish', or 'knowledgeable natural substance'? Still, a few derivations would be useful: matter: non-living, artificial, locative -> teyoteda - school other -> teyokida - encyclopedia non-living, natural, locative -> teyonaida - oracle matter & energy: non-living, artificial -> teyofiuda - computer This does not mean that the other derivations are useless. In fact, they could be quite useful in stories and novels, since writers often create and use new words in their stories. For example, in a fantasy or mythological setting, an especially knowledgeable species of bird could be called a "teyosuda", a 'cavern of knowledge' could be called a "teyonaida", and so on. However, other stative concepts can definitely be useful. For example, the related concept of 'smart/intelligent' will be much more productive. In the sample language, we will use the root "tenci-" to represent the concept 'smart/ intelligent'. Using this root, we can derive the useful P-s words: tencisi = tencisesi = to be smart/intelligent tencino = smart/intelligent tencipe = intelligently We can also use other verb classifiers to derive words such as "tencipusi", meaning 'to smarten = to make more intelligent', "tencipiasi" meaning 'to smarten up = to become more intelligent', and so on. (Later, we'll see what happens when we add a focus to stative concepts such as 'intelligent'.) For noun derivations, we can keep the state meaning and apply it directly to the noun classifier in a way that is cogent and useful. Here are my candidates for the state root "tenci-", meaning 'smart/intelligent': matter & energy: living, mammal -> tencimoda - chimpanzee bird -> tencisuda - hawk reptile -> tencipustada - ??? fish -> tencisaida - ??? insect -> tencizioda - bee other animal -> tencinembida - octopus tree -> tencipoda - ??? non-living, natural -> tencijida - ??? non-living, artificial -> tencifiuda - robot/android matter: living -> tencivauda - brain non-living, natural, substance -> tencifada - ??? locative -> tencinaida - ??? other -> tencileda - ??? non-living, artificial, substance -> tenciniuda - ??? locative -> tenciteda - ??? other -> tencikida - ??? energy: living -> tencidengida - mind/intellect non-living -> tencipaida - intellectual power time: -> tencibeda - ??? As you can see, I did not provide meanings for all possible derivations. Perhaps it will be possible to do so later. I feel that when using a root for its mnemonic value, the result should be reasonably obvious, and I was not able to provide reasonably obvious meanings for some of the above derivations. Also, when deciding on a meaning, make sure that it cannot be more accurately derived with a different root. For example, I actually considered giving the meaning 'paper' to the word "tenciniuda", but realized that it would be much more preferable to derive the word for 'paper' from the same root used to derive the nouns meaning 'tree' and 'wood'. Ultimately, in the final stages of vocabulary design, you will have a large number of words that don't seem to be derivable in any reasonably obvious way, and for which you will not want to provide unique roots because of their rarity. At that point in time, you can use some of the unused derivations. For example, let's say we need a word for the fresh water fish called the 'muskellunge' (relative of the pike, pickerel, and sturgeon). Since these fish are large and relatively intelligent compared to most fish, we could use the word "tencisaida" (which we did not use above). In this case it's doubtful that ANY other root would be much better for such a little-known fish. Thus, "tencisai-" would become a de facto root for 'muskellunge'. And on first seeing this word, we at least immediately know that it's some kind of fish because of the "-sai-" classifier. Finally, don't forget that the above nouns can undergo still further derivation by adding verb classifiers to them as we illustrated earlier. 3.6 ABSTRACT NOUNS There are several nouns that are difficult to classify because of their inherent abstractness. Some of these nouns refer to concepts such as language (e.g. French), culture (e.g. Arab), race (e.g. Caucasian), nationality (e.g. Mexican), and religion or ideology (e.g. Christian). These, however, are all proper nouns, and I will postpone discussion of them until later, in the section on proper nouns and vocatives. There are also concepts that are more general in nature and which typically describe the activities of humans (and others), the abstract products of such activities, the components of such products, and so on. The question, though, is: What are these words? Are they nouns? Are they verbs? Or are they something else? To answer this question, consider the English words "opera", "mathematics", and "adjective". If they are inherently verbs, then why do we never use them as verbs? They are always used as nouns. And if they are inherently stative, then why can we never use them as adjectives? In fact, if they were inherently stative, we would not need to derive such words as "operatic", "mathematical", and "adjectival". The only conclusion that makes any sense is that these words are inherently NOUNS. So, if they are indeed nouns, then how do we classify them? Consider the word "opera". We might be tempted to classify it as non-living, artificial matter & energy. However, this would put it into the same category as "jacuzzi", "computer", and "automobile". For some reason or other, my mind rejects the idea that "computer" and "opera" are in the same class. And what about "mathematics", "adjective", and "poem"? Should they be placed in the non-living energy class? If so, they would be classified along with "electricity", "light", and "thunder". Again, my mind rejects this categorization. One thing that should be fairly obvious by now is that noun classification is inherently arbitrary, and that there is no way to avoid this arbitrariness. We can see logic and structure in the design of verbs, but nouns resist any truly logical classification. The reason for this is simply that nouns represent the products of an inherently random universe. For example, if you look at a diagram that classifies the animal kingdom, you'll find that some main branches have very few sub-branches, while others have numerous sub-branches with sub-sub-branches, and so on. You will also find that some entities resist accurate categorization into any single class. We can only expect that this inherent arbitrariness must be even more prevalent when dealing with more complex, abstract concepts, especially when we add concepts that represent the products of HUMAN activities. Thus, it seems to me that our only recourse in dealing with these words is to create whatever classes are needed, in the same way as we did for the non- abstract noun classes. Fortunately, I don't think we'll need many classes to achieve our goal. In fact, we need very few. Here are the ones that I feel most efficiently divide up the concept space of abstract nouns: -ta- Measurements: day, pound, meter, dollar, spoonful, basketful, lap, handful, acre, thimbleful, etc. -biu- Groups/organizations: club, company, religion/sect, government, platoon, choir, etc. -xo- Performances: opera, game, marathon, recital (poetry), sex, ceremony/ritual, lunch/meal/banquet, language/dialect, etc. -li- Performance Components and Results: equation, sentence, climax, act/scene, hexagon, number, letter, cosine, crewcut, integral, poem, hairdo, cliche, square root, "straw man", momentum, etc. -tiwa- Fields (of endeavor): history, music, physics, philosophy, linguistics, carpentry, farming, teaching, architecture, etc. -vo- Field Components (i.e. schools) and Results (i.e. styles): functionalism, objectivism, monism, corinthian/doric, baroque, etc. Many roots can be used in more than one abstract category. For example, the concept 'language' can be derived as a performance. When derived as a field of endeavor, it means 'linguistics'. When derived as a group, it means 'language community' or 'speakers of a language'. As another example, the concept 'corinthian' can be derived as a field result or style, in which case it could apply to specific architectual objects, such as corinthian columns. When derived as a field component or school, it would apply to the school of architecture that designed or studied such forms. However, it may be simpler to teach beginning students of the language just the most common form, and use it as a qualifier where necessary. With this approach, the word "opera" would be derived as a performance, and the adjective form could then be used with the noun meaning 'field/profession' to create an expression meaning 'field of opera' or 'operatic profession'. More advanced users of the language can, of course, create multiple forms with the same root. All of this implies that when a root is used for its mnemonic value with one of the above abstract categories, it should have the same mnemonic value when used with the other abstract categories. While this approach differs from the way most other basic noun categories are used, I think it is a good approach to adopt. The only exception to the above approach would be the measurements class. Measurements are really the components of performances, but I have given them a unique classifier because they form such a large and useful class. I recommend that the measurement classifier be attached to a root PLUS classifier for the non-precise measurements such as "spoonful" and "handful". It can be attached to a simple root for the precise measures, such as "gram" and "month". Many fields of endeavor can be derived from complete verbs. For example, the word representing the profession of teaching can be derived from the complete A/P/F-d verb "teyokosi", meaning 'to teach', plus the field classifier. Thus, the word "teyokotiwada" means 'teaching profession' or 'field of teaching'. Verb classifiers can be applied to abstract nouns in the same way as to other basic nouns. However, there will be one major difference. When basic nouns are used as roots in verb derivations, the roots are essentially states, not actions. For abstract nouns used as roots, the roots must be interpreted as actions, since performances, fields and so on inherently describe what an agent is doing - NOT what a patient is experiencing. Thus, the non-agentive derivations will not be very useful, and, as with all actions, the AP derivations will be activities. For example, if the root for 'mathematics' is "-mante-", then we can derive the following: mantetiwada = 'mathematics' (basic abstract noun) mantetiwano = 'mathematical' mantetiwape = 'mathematically' mantetiwapanjisi = AP-s verb 'to do/use mathematics', 'to be a mathematician' mantetiwapanjida = AP-s noun mathematician Since many nouns will be needed to represent members of professions, a unique classifier, "-neya-", has been allocated for this purpose in the sample language. Thus, the classifier "-neya-" is equivalent to "-tiwa-panji-". Using "-neya-", the word for 'mathematician' is "manteneyada" and the word for 'to be a mathematician' is "manteneyasi". Note also that the root "-mante-" would be used with its absolute state meaning (which we have not defined here) in basic verb derivations, but is used only for its mnemonic value in the abstract noun derivations. Thus, abstract nouns use roots in exactly the same way as all other basic nouns. Because of this, our earlier derivation of "teyokotiwada" meaning 'teaching profession' is probably overkill. The derivation "teyotiwada" would be just as acceptable. However, it might be a good idea to include the verb classifier for more obscure fields and professions, or when the root could be used to represent more than one field depending on the verb classifier. 3.6.1 IS IT AN ACTION OR A PERFORMANCE? In some cases it may be difficult to decide whether a concept should be implemented as an action or as an abstract noun. For example, is translation from one language to another an action or a performance? It is certainly not a state concept, since it is not clear precisely what has undergone a change of state. But if we implement it as an action, then it will be most useful as an AP/F-s verb, where AP represents the translator and F represents the item being translated. However, translation is also a profession, and so can also be implemented as an abstract noun. And by doing so, we gain an important advantage: we don't need to allocate a unique root for the concept. Instead, we can use one or more existing morphemes for their mnemonic value. This is especially important since action concepts are not as productive as state concepts in further verbal derivation. But this raises questions about other action concepts. For example, should we implement concepts such as 'smoking', 'swimming', 'speaking', 'reading' and so on as actions or as abstract nouns? After giving the matter considerable thought, I feel that the following guidelines will be the most productive as well as the most natural: 1. Purely physical, non-speech activities should be implemented as actions; e.g. 'kick', 'swim', 'smoke', 'dance', 'sing', etc. Note that these are what we have been calling basic "actions" or "activities". 2. Acts that clearly involve basic, uncomplicated, untrained, or unrehearsed human speech should be implemented as actions; e.g. 'speak', 'shout', 'curse', 'mock', etc. Note that these are what we have been calling basic "speech acts". 3. All other activities should be implemented as performances. These activities will consist of all human activities that are relatively complex, ritualistic, or artificial; e.g. 'reading', 'writing', 'translating', 'acting (movies or stage)', 'plumbing', 'woodworking', etc. 4. When in doubt, activities that are unique to humans or those which have associated professions should be implemented as performances. Others should be implemented as actions. Unfortunately, the distinction that we must make between activities and performances is inherently arbitrary, because we must base our decisions on inherently subjective attributes such as naturalness and complexity. Thus, the above are guidelines - not hard and fast rules. 3.7 MASS, COUNT, AND GROUP DISTINCTIONS Many nouns have separate forms that differentiate between homogeneous entities, individuals, and groups of individuals. These are referred to, respectively, as _mass nouns_, _count nouns_, and _group nouns_. Here are some English examples: Mass Count Group --------- ----- ----- mutton sheep flock grass blade of grass lawn, patch of grass ship fleet bowels intestine lower digestive tract leaf bunch of leaves, foliage beef steer herd/cattle hair strand of hair patch of hair rice grain of rice measure or portion of rice guts/flesh organ body wood tree grove, wood map atlas water drop of water shower Note that mass nouns are almost never used in the plural (*muttons, *beefs), while count and group nouns can often be either singular or plural (ship/ships, flock/flocks). Count nouns ALWAYS have both singular and plural versions. The mass versions of words like "ship", "leaf", and "map" would indicate the substances or materials that the item is composed of. [Incidentally, do not confuse group nouns discussed in this section with the abstract group class discussed in the previous section. Here, we are referring to natural groupings of any basic noun. The separate group class, however, refers to groups of diverse elements (typically human) linked by one or more activities specifically associated with the group. The groups discussed in this section do not imply any type of activity.] In the noun derivation scheme discussed earlier, some classes contained only count nouns while others contained only mass nouns. Specifically, in the 'matter, non-living' classes, 'substances' are inherently mass nouns, while 'locatives' and 'others' are inherently count nouns. Note especially, though, that in our derivations, the 'other' counterparts of 'substance' nouns are NOT their count equivalents. For example, 'aquarium' is NOT the count equivalent of the mass noun 'broth'. In other words, I am intentionally NOT using the substance/other classifiers to make a semantic mass/count distinction with the same root morpheme, even though such a distinction is an inherent part of the classification. There are two major reasons for this. First, we would end up wasting a basic noun classifier for a distinction that is almost always useless. (What is the count equivalent of 'broth'? What is the mass equivalent of 'aquarium'?) Second, as we saw above, we will also need to make a group distinction - and we cannot capture this new distinction in a way that is consistent with the mass/ count distinction without providing additional basic noun classifiers. Thus, it will be much better to create class-CHANGING morphemes that can specifically handle these distinctions when needed, rather than force the distinctions to be made all the time. In other words, we need to create special class-changing morphemes to make mass/count/group distinctions in the same way that we created class-changing morphemes to make grammatical voice distinctions. Before creating and applying such morphemes, however, we should first list all the noun classes and their default types; i.e., whether they are mass nouns, count nouns, or group nouns: matter & energy: living, mammal -> count: man, tiger, mouse, elf, unicorn bird -> count: hawk, ostrich, canary, penguin reptile -> count: lizard, newt, frog, turtle, snake fish -> count: trout, salmon, halibut, perch insect -> count: ant, fly, mosquito, grasshopper others -> count: tree, clam, vine, worm, carrot non-living, natural -> count: tornado, geyser, storm, earthquake non-living, artificial -> count: airplane, computer, oven, robot matter: living -> count: hand, leaf, branch, liver, acorn non-living, natural, substance -> mass: water, sand, salt, ivory, urine, air locative -> count: cliff, river, island, mountain, bay other -> count: boulder, fang, strand of hair non-living, artificial, substance -> mass: plastic, benzene, whisky, sauce, glue locative -> count: wharf, building, kitchen, city, road other -> count: window, statue, ax, book, nail energy: living -> count: ghost, spirit, god, banshee, undine non-living -> mass: heat, thunder, light, noise, energy time: -> either: winter, sunset, morning, season Thus, the default for all 'substance' and 'non-living, energy' nouns will be 'mass'. The default for all 'time' nouns will depend on context. The default for all other nouns will be 'count'. NO class of nouns has a 'group' default. There is also the question of the semantics of the class-changing morphemes. I suggest the following rules: 1. When converting a basic mass noun to a count noun, the result should indicate an entity that is both prototypical and useful in everyday human language. If there is more than one possibility, choose the smallest unit that has common usage in natural language. Examples: water -> waterdrop, thunder -> thunderclap/peal of thunder, grass -> blade of grass, etc. 2. When converting a basic count noun to a mass noun, the result should indicate a reasonably homogeneous mass that is both prototypical and useful in everyday human language. Examples: all animals and plants -> the flesh or wood, summer -> summertime. If this interpretation is not practical, then it should indicate the substances of which the entity is composed. Example: map -> ink, paper, etc. that the map is made of; i.e. 'map stuff' or 'map material' 3. When converting any count noun to a group noun, the result should indicate a composite entity that is both prototypical and useful in everyday human language. If there is more than one possible grouping, choose the most common or most useful. Examples: mountain -> mountain range, mosquito -> swarm of mosquitos, X -> group or bunch of X's. Here are the class-changing morphemes that we will use in the sample language along with a few examples: -gi- convert to count noun -jazmi- convert to mass noun -senje- convert to group noun guafagida = waterdrop guafasenjeda = (water) shower guamosenjeda = pod (of whales or dolphins) guasaisenjeda = school of puffers/blowfish guasujazmida = duck flesh/meat It is important to keep in mind that the mass/count/group distinctions should NOT be used to indicate exact magnitudes or counts, unless they are both natural and unique. For example, we could define the count version of the noun 'time' as 'day', but this just raises the question of how to handle the other time units, such as 'hour' and 'year'. Instead, I would define the count version of 'time' to be 'a while'; i.e. a non-exact unit of time that is both prototypical and useful in human language. In fact, units of measure should NEVER be derived as count versions of mass nouns. Instead, they should be derived using the abstract measurement classifier that we discussed earlier. [I will provide examples of this later, in the chapter on counts and measures.] Now, there is a potentially serious flaw with the above approach to mass/count/ group distinctions. In the lexical semantic system being proposed here, classifiers and class-changing morphemes are SEMANTICALLY PRECISE. However, the above class-changing morphemes are somewhat arbitrary. For example, the mass or substance of a 'tree' is not just 'wood' - it also includes 'bark', 'leaf', 'root', 'fruit', etc. If you do not insist on semantic precision for these distinctions, then the above system will probably be adequate for your needs. However, if this lack of precision is unacceptable to you (as it is to me), then I suggest the following solution: (1) Use the class-changing morphemes for their precise (but vague) meanings 'unit of', 'mass of', and 'group of'. These CCMs can also be used when there is only one possible interpretation that is both common and useful. (2) Use the basic noun classes to make useful but non-precise distinctions between mass and count senses of basic nouns. Thus, we WILL use the count CCM to create words meaning 'waterdrop', 'snowflake', and 'thunderclap', since there are no other interpretations that are both common and useful. Rule (2) will be most useful for non-precise mass derivations of basic count nouns. For example, if the state root "-denga-" means 'dirty' and the basic mammal noun "dengamoda" means 'pig', then we can derive the following: dengamoda -> pig (mammal) dengafada -> pork (non-living, natural substance) dengamojazmida -> pig flesh/skin/bones/etc. (mass noun) dengamosenjeda -> group/herd of pigs (group noun) In other words, use the 'natural substance' classifier for mass derivations of basic count nouns that are inherently non-homogeneous. 3.8 MORE ON ENVIRONMENTAL VERBS The earlier noun-to-verb examples using the concept of 'storm' can also be extended to other environmental concepts such as 'rain', 'snow', etc. For example, if the basic noun for 'snow' (as in "Snow covered the ground") is "xumpifada", then we can derive the following words: xumpifada -> snow (mass noun) xumpifagida -> snowflake (count noun) xumpifasenjeda -> snowbank (group noun) xumpifaseno -> snowy (P-s adjective) xumpifapiasi -> it snowed on... (P-d verb) xumpifapiano -> snowed-on, snow-covered (P-d adjective) xumpifapiadesi -> to snow (out) (middle voice 0-d [-P] verb) xumpijida -> snowfall xumpibeda -> winter [Note that the verb "to snow" is dynamic. Even though the process is slow, it still causes a change in the environment.] As discussed earlier, environmental verbs that involve simpler, more basic states (such as 'to get hot out') should be derived as basic verbs, rather than from basic 'energy, non-living' nouns. However, we will still need a noun to represent the concept of 'thermal energy'. For this, the obvious choice IS the 'energy, non-living' noun "xaupaida". Derivations using this basic noun will emphasize that thermal energy is present (P-s), is being applied (A/P-d), etc. The basic verb forms, though, are less physically or scientifically oriented, and are thus usable in more contexts. In effect, we are making a distinction between the mundane use of 'heat' and the more technical 'thermal energy'. 3.9 GENERIC NOUNS As we did with verbs, we can create generic words using noun classifiers. Unlike verbs, however, there is no need to make a distinction between states and actions. Thus, a generic root is not necessary, and the classifier becomes, in effect, both a root and a classifier with the same meaning. Here are some of the more useful examples: matter & energy: living, animal -> nembida 'animal' mammal -> moda 'mammal' bird -> suda 'bird' fish -> saida 'fish' reptile -> pustada 'reptile' insect -> zioda 'insect' plant -> kayada 'plant' non-living, artificial -> fiuda 'device', 'mechanism', 'appliance', 'apparatus' matter: living -> vauda 'organ', 'body part' non-living, natural, locative -> naida 'natural location/place/spot' other -> leda '(natural) thing', 'object' non-living, artificial, locative -> teda 'man-made location/place/spot' other -> kida '(artificial) thing', 'item', 'implement' energy: living -> dengida 'spirit/ghost' non-living -> paida 'energy' time: -> beda 'time' abstract nouns: -> tada 'unit of measure' -> xoda 'performance/activity' -> tiwada 'field/profession' Finally, all of the derivations that apply to basic nouns can also be applied to generic nouns. For example, we can create the A/P-d verb "paipusi", meaning 'to energize/activate/turn on', the P-s adjective "zioseno", meaning 'infested with insects', and so on. 3.10 ADDITIONAL NOUN CLASSES The AL designer may want to create additional classifiers to divide the semantic space of nouns into even smaller and more precise pieces. For example, additional classifiers could be created for the names of lesser-known species that are not covered above, instead of using the 'other' classifier. Thus, you could have additional classifiers for molluscs (e.g. snails), annelids (e.g. worms), echinoderms (e.g. starfish), etc. In this way, only truly obscure species would use the 'other' classifier. In fact, you might even want to consider completely eliminating the 'other' classifier, and replacing it with as many classifiers as are needed to completely represent the animal kingdom. While this may increase the learning burden on the student, it is still FAR better than having to memorize unique, unrelated root morphemes for each entity. Similarly, you may want to replace the 'plant' classifiers with several smaller classes. 4.0 CASE TAGS So far, we've discussed the major case roles of agent, patient, agent-patient, and focus, and mentioned in passing a few oblique roles, such as instrument and manner. We also spent a considerable amount of time showing how to convert verbs to case tags and adverbs. In this section, I'd like to discuss how to create oblique case tags for ANY case role, especially the more traditional ones. 4.1 REVIEW OF CASE ROLE SEMANTICS A sentence consists of a main verb and its arguments, and each argument has a case relation associated with it. For example, a sentence like: On Tuesday, John moved the crate to the storeroom with a forklift. can be analyzed as follows: move: agent -> John patient -> the crate destination -> the storeroom instrument -> a forklift time -> Tuesday In effect, the prepositions "on", "to" and "with" are LABELS; i.e., they name or 'tag' the roles played by their arguments. In English, the core roles of agent and patient are not explicitly labelled, but are indicated by the meaning of the verb and the relative positions of subject and object. Also, keep in mind that an oblique case role not only modifies the entire event headed by the verb, but it also often has a strong link to a particular core argument of the main verb. Thus, the instrumental case tag can be derived from an A/P-s verb meaning 'to use', and links the agent of the main verb to the patient of the case tag. This is so because the subject of the case tag is A and the object of the case tag is P. In effect, the subject of the case tag is the agent of the main verb. If a case tag is derived from a P/F verb, then it will link its F argument to the patient of the main verb. Adverbs are derived from intransitive verbs and link to the appropriate argument of the main verb, but do not themselves have arguments. To create case tags, then, all we need to do is start with a verb that has the appropriate functional meaning and mark it in some way to show that it is a case tag. This, of course, is exactly what we did earlier when we converted verbs to case tags and adverbs. However, we did it with a literal twist - when we convert a verb to a case tag, the 'label' sense of the case tag derives from the OBJECT of the case tag - NOT from the subject. In effect, for the 'label' sense, we actually used the noun derivation of the INVERSE of the verb. Since this may not be immediately obvious, consider our derivation of the instrumental sense of 'with': I broke the window with a hammer. I broke the window using a hammer. to use: A/P-s Whenever we convert a basic verb such as "to use" to a noun, we give it the meaning of a generic SUBJECT. If we were to use THIS noun sense for a case tag, it would give us the meaning of 'user' - NOT the item used. Thus, the 'label' sense of "instrument" actually comes from the generic OBJECT - what we might call the 'usee'. If, instead, we performed an inverse voice change on the verb and converted the result to a case tag, we would then get the 'label' sense of 'user' (which for this verb is probably not very useful). This can cause problems, however, since the case role of a generic object can be the same for different verbs derived from the same root. For example, the AP/F version of a verb differs from its P/F counterpart ONLY IN THE SEMANTICS OF THE SUBJECT - NOT IN THE SEMANTICS OF THE OBJECT. A case tag, however, must capture the semantics of the object. Consider the following examples: I watched as the soldiers surrounded the compound. 'to surround' = AP/F-d I noticed that the soldiers surrounded the compound. 'to surround' = AP/F-s I could see that the fence surrounded the compound. 'to surround' = P/F-s Obviously, we would like to create the equivalent of the English preposition "around" from the verb "to surround" (as in "They built a fence around the compound"). But which version of the verb do we use? The case role of the object is the same for all three verbs. They differ in the case role of the subject and in whether they are static or dynamic. The static/dynamic distinction is an important one, and although it does not appear in the English preposition "around", it does appear in other prepositions; e.g. "They jogged IN the park" versus "They jogged INTO the park". And since it is semantically valid, I feel that we SHOULD make this distinction, even though the English equivalent of this particular case tag is ambiguous. [We will discuss this distinction in more detail later.] This still leaves us with the problem of deciding whether to use the AP/F or the P/F verb or both. First of all, we don't need both forms for the simple reason that the main verb makes the necessary distinction, and there is no need to repeat this distinction in the case tag. The only real function of the case tag is to indicate the state of the patient while linking it to the main verb. How it got to that state is not important. Thus, only the P/F form is needed. Of course, if the patient of the main verb is also the agent, then it, by default, becomes the agent of the state indicated by the case tag. Thus, there is no need to indicate agency in this particular case tag, and doing so is simply redundant. This does not mean that a speaker should never use the AP/F version of 'around'. There will probably be some situations in which such forms could be used to indicate emphasis, subtlety, or precision. 4.1.1 NON-LINKING ADVERBS AND CASE TAGS Some readers may object to creating case tags that may be more semantically precise than their counterparts in natural languages. For example, some AL designers might want to have a preposition that has both the static and dynamic coverage of the English preposition 'around'. One possible way to accomplish this would be to have three special classifiers which would be intentionally vague, and which could be used instead of the more precise classifiers. In our sample language, these three classifiers will have the following specifications and interpretations: 0/P - Non-linking classifier "-gu-" The argument which follows this case tag is an argument of the verb and is somehow affected or potentially affected by the event, but there is no indication of who the agent is, or even if an agent exists. There is also no indication of whether the argument is affected statically, dynamically, or only potentially. 0/F - Non-linking classifier "-jo-" The argument which follows this case tag is an argument of the verb and is (perhaps) the focus of a relationship with one or more of the other arguments of the verb. There is no indication of whether the relationship is static, dynamic, or potential. "0" - Non-linking classifier "-la-" This classifier creates an adverb which modifies the verb and which is not explicitly linked to any of the other arguments of the verb. There is no indication of whether the adverb is static, dynamic, or potential. Note that distinct classifiers must be created, since all existing verb classifiers clearly indicate whether they are static, dynamic, or potential. Thus, these new classifiers are intentionally vague. The last form (i.e. "0") could be used to create equivalents of many English adverbs that end in "-ly". For some of these adverbs, it is often unclear which core argument is being linked to, if any. Consider the following examples: (1) John quickly opened the door. (2) John opened the door quickly. These two examples are almost, but not quite, synonymous. The first COULD imply (but not necessarily) that the agent was 'quick' in opening the door; i.e., he acted quickly. The second COULD be emphasizing (but not necessarily) that the door underwent rapid motion. Thus, if we wanted to be specific, we could obtain the first sense by deriving the adverb from the AP-s verb, since the agent caused himself to be 'quick'. The second sense can be obtained from the P-s verb, since it would emphasize that the door experienced the 'quick' state. If the speaker did not wish to be so precise, he could use the "0" form. Using the same reasoning, the 0/F classifier would be used to create the equivalent of the English preposition 'around' using the same root as the various versions of the verb 'to surround'. Later, we'll see an example of how to use the 0/P classifier when we discuss the _beneficiary_ case tag. Thus, by using specific forms (AP-s and P-s), we can modify the verb while indicating a link to a particular argument of the verb. By using the "0" form, we directly modify the verb. However, if there is a link to any argument of the verb (and there may NOT be one), it is not stated, although it may be implied by the context. In effect, the 0/F form modifies the verb directly with no indication of linkage to other arguments of the verb. Unfortunately, this implies that our semantics has a hole in it, since we've only covered two of three possibilities: 1. Modify the verb and link to a specific argument. 2. Modify the verb directly with no specified linkage. 3. Modify the entire event - NOT just the verb. We've covered the first two possibilities, but not the third. So, how do we modify the entire event while explicitly excluding a link to any argument of the main verb? In effect, how do we describe the state of an entire event? The answer is to describe the state of an event in the same way we describe the state of an entity - by making the event the argument of a P-s verb. Here are examples that illustrate the idea: P-s adverb: John opened the door QUICKLY. - the door underwent rapid movement as John opened it. AP-s adverb: John QUICKLY opened the door. - John acted quickly in opening the door. "0" adverb: John opened the door QUICKLY. - no specific linkage. P-s verb: (John opened the door) BE_QUICK. - the entire event happened quickly. The actual surface form of the fourth example will depend on the syntax of your AL. In effect, we are saying that the entire event portrayed by the embedded sentence experienced a 'quick' state. In other words, the embedded sentence is the subject of the P-s verb "to be quick". The major difference between using the "0" adverb and the P-s verb is in how we perceive the event. With the "0" adverb, we are observing the event from the inside by directly modifying the verb. With the P-s verb, we are observing the event from the outside. This distinction is not a very useful one in the above example, but will be useful in other situations, as we will see later when we discuss _disjuncts_. Finally, having said all of the above, I do NOT feel that use of the "0" adverb or the "0/F" case tag is a good, general-purpose solution, and I would NOT use these unlinked classifiers in a design of my own unless there is clearly no other choice (we will see examples of this shortly). Just because English has some vague prepositions does not mean that your AL should also have them. In my opinion, semantically distinct meanings should have lexically distinct representations. 4.1.2 CASE ROLE TERMINOLOGY So far, we have limited ourselves to using the descriptive terms "core" and "oblique" when referring to case roles. We also mentioned in passing the terms "primary" and "secondary" when we discussed exchange verbs. At this point, I would like to take the opportunity to review what these terms mean, since a good understanding of the distinctions between them will be useful in the upcoming discussions. When referring to case roles, the term "core" refers to roles that are part of the valency of a verb. Thus, they usually refer to the four major roles: agent, agent-patient, patient, and focus. An "oblique" case role is not part of the valency of the verb, and must be marked in some way to indicate its function. In English, oblique case roles are introduced by prepositions. However, a core argument can be made oblique by means of a grammatical voice change, such as passive or anti-passive. A "primary" case role is a role that occurs naturally in the valency of an UNCHANGED verb. Thus, a primary case role must ALWAYS be either an agent, agent-patient, patient, or focus. Furthermore, an argument remains primary even if it is made oblique by means of a grammatical voice change. For example, the agent of the verb "kill" is a primary case role, whether it appears as the subject of the verb, or as the argument of the preposition "by" in a passive voice operation. A "secondary" case role is a role that occurs naturally as an oblique argument of an UNCHANGED verb. Thus, a secondary case role can NEVER be the primary agent, agent-patient, patient, or focus of the verb. 4.1.3 CASE ROLE PHILOSOPHY Starting with the next section of this monograph, I will discuss in detail how to derive many of the traditional case tags that appear in natural languages. However, before doing so, I would like to briefly digress and comment on the philosophy of case tag design. The derivational approach that we are using here is especially advantageous because there is no need to design a linguistically complete and correct case system. Linguists have yet to agree on such a system, and I'm not sure it's even possible. However, using the approach described here, ANY verb can be converted to a case tag, as long as the result makes sense and performs the desired function. [Incidentally, it is also possible that the system I am proposing here has real theoretical validity. In other words, it's possible that there really ARE only four basic case roles, and that all of the other case relations are derivable from them. However, I am not making this claim for the simple reason that I don't know if it is true, although I suspect it is. Also, I am not a professional linguist and I do not feel qualified to make such a claim.] The derivational approach has the added benefit of providing case tags with literally precise meanings. For example, the word "teyokomiusi" is the A/P-d [+F] version of the word meaning 'to teach'. If we invert it and convert it to the case tag "teyokomiuvipe" (the literal meaning would be something like 'the teacher being'), we can use it in the following sentence instead of the preposition "under": Bill studied biology UNDER Professor Jones. By using a case tag derived from the verb meaning 'teach', we specify the true case role precisely, rather than having to use "under" metaphorically. This is highly beneficial because metaphoric use of prepositions differs widely among natural languages, and if you translate a metaphoric use of an English preposition literally into your AL, you will be misunderstood by many people who do not speak English. With the rich and flexible case system that we are describing here, metaphorical use of case tags can be completely avoided. 4.2 PRIMARY CASE ROLES Let's start by creating oblique case tags for the four primary case roles. These can be used to specify oblique A, AP, P, and F arguments in passive, anti-passive, and other grammatical voice-changing constructions. As we discussed earlier, passive and anti-passive constructions remove an argument from the argument structure of a verb and make it optional. To specify the optional argument, we could use case tags derived specifically for agent, patient, agent-patient, and focus. However, most (and perhaps all) natural languages are not so semantically precise. For example, ANY passive construction in English allows the original subject to be specified obliquely using the preposition "by", regardless of the actual case role: The window was broken by the neighbors' son. - where "by" introduces an agent. The poem was memorized by all the children. - where "by" introduces an agent-patient. The thief was seen by an off-duty policeman. - where "by" introduces a patient. The best approach, in my opinion, is to apply the voice changing morpheme directly to the part-of-speech marker. In effect, the part-of-speech marker is a combination of a generic root PLUS a generic class. We'll see how to put this to even greater use later. Thus, using this approach, the oblique case tags would be: passive: nupe For oblique expression of original subject. The English equivalent is "by". anti-passive: gape For oblique expression of original object. English does not have a formal anti-passive, so there is no standard English equivalent. where "-nu-" and "-ga-" are the morphemes we defined earlier to perform passive and anti-passive voice changes, respectively. Similar derivations can be done for other grammatical voice changes which allow a demoted argument to be expressed obliquely. [Note that by appending a class-changing morpheme directly to an terminator, we are creating a new root with the same form and meaning as the class-changing morpheme. Thus, the morpheme is, in fact, both a root and a class-changing morpheme with the same meaning.] Now, since these roots/class-changing morphemes can appear both on the verb as well as in the generic case tag, this approach is somewhat redundant. To eliminate this redundancy, I suggest that the morpheme NOT be used on the verb when the demoted argument is expressed obliquely. Here are some English examples using the passive: Bill was closing the door. The door was closing by Bill. = The door was being closed by Bill. Louise punched Bill in the stomach. Bill punched in the stomach by Louise. = Bill was punched in the stomach by Louise. Mike saw the accident. The accident saw by Mike. = The accident was seen by Mike. The cat killed and ate the mouse. The mouse killed and ate by the cat. = The mouse was killed and eaten by the cat. The boys broke three windows. Three windows broke by the boys. = Three windows were broken by the boys. The results sound odd in English, but are perfectly understandable. Keep in mind, though, that the class-changing morphemes MUST be used on the verb if the original subject (of the passive) or the original object (of the anti-passive) is not expressed obliquely. For double operations, such as double passive or double anti-passive, the double operation is just a short-cut for two more basic operations. For example, the double passive is equivalent to an anti-passive followed by a passive voice change. Thus, if one or both arguments need to be expressed obliquely, a case tag formed from the double morpheme should NOT be used, since it would not be clear which argument it referred to. Instead, case tags formed from the more basic operations should be used. 4.3 SECONDARY CASE ROLES Now, if we really need to express the roles of agent, patient, etc. PRECISELY, we can start with generic versions of the A/P-s, P/F-s and AP/F-s and invert them if necessary. When converted to case tags, these verbs will take on the 'label' meanings of 'semantic agent', 'semantic patient', etc. However, these derivations are TOO precise, since they precisely state whether they are static, dynamic, or potential. Thus, we now face the same problem we discussed earlier when we had to deal with case tags that were too precise. For a situation like this, I feel that the alternative approach discussed earlier (and to which I am generally opposed) can be legitimately used here. That solution, however, only provided us with three non-linking classifiers - "-gu-" for 0/P, "-jo-" for 0/F, and "-la-" for 0. We now need two more: 0/A - Non-linking classifier "-fia-" The argument which follows this case tag is an argument of the verb and is somehow responsible for the event. There is no indication of whether the patient is affected statically, dynamically, or only potentially. 0/AP - Non-linking classifier "-piu-" The argument which follows this case tag is an argument of the verb and is somehow both responsible for the event and affected by the event. There is no indication of whether the effect on the patient is static, dynamic, or potential. Thus, the new case tags are: Agent -> fiape Agent-patient -> piupe Patient -> gupe Focus -> jope As case tags, we could paraphrase them as "an agent being", "a patient being", etc. They can be useful when the speaker wants to intentionally add a case role where the verb does not normally allow one, as in "The three men died at the hands of the butler", where "at the hands of" would be represented by the word "fiape". And, as we will see later, they may also be used to add a new argument with the same case role as an existing argument, but whose linkage is not clear. It is important to emphasize that these case roles do NOT represent the same roles as the corresponding core arguments. Thus, they are secondary case roles. Later, we'll see how this distinction can be very useful. By now, I assume that the semantics of case roles is reasonably clear, and that creating case tags for ANY role should not be too difficult. A little practice, however, never hurts. So, in this section, I will describe how to create case tags for some of the most common, traditional case roles. In most of the following derivations, I will paraphrase the function of the case role with a standard template that will allow us to clearly and consistently capture the semantics of the case role. The template will have the form: "In the event in which X occurred, sub-event Y occurred". Here are some examples: He broke the window with a hammer. = In the event in which he broke the window, he used a hammer. He ran into the house. = In the event in which he ran, he 'became in' the house. He drove the car like a madman. = In the event in which he drove the car, he acted/behaved like a madman. I bought the car after we got married. = In the event in which I bought the car, the 'time locus' was after we got married. And so on. By using a standard template, we can avoid ad hoc solutions that will just have to be redone later. Finally, because the approach used here is derivational, we will often run into situations where several morphemes are needed to accurately express a particular case role. The result is often a word that is much longer than its counterpart in most natural languages. For me, this is not a problem. In fact, I feel that it adds considerably to the overall attractiveness of a language. However, for those who prefer more 'efficient' results, I will discuss how to considerably shorten words later, in the section on _macros_. 4.3.1 INSTRUMENT We've already mentioned the _instrument_ case role a few times in passing. Here, we'll discuss it in more detail. The instrument case role describes an entity which is used by an agent as an aid in accomplishing the event described by the verb. An instrument is not responsible for the event and is not significantly affected by the event. Thus, although the label "instrument" is universally used by linguists, a more proper term would probably be "catalyst". However, I will continue to use the traditional term "instrument". Here are some examples: John broke the window WITH a hammer. She cut the rope WITH scissors. The bear crushed the can WITH its powerful jaw muscles. He called me ON his new cellular phone. They heard the news ON channel 4. We paid for the items IN Japanese Yen. Here is an example of a standard paraphrase of this case role: He broke the window with a hammer. = In the event in which he broke the window, he used a hammer. Therefore, we can create the instrument case tag from the generic A/P-s action verb "zesi = zezoyasi" which we derived earlier and which means 'to use'. Thus, the instrument case tag is simply "zepe = zezoyape". 4.3.2 SECONDARY PATIENT, BENEFICIARY, AND MALEFICIARY A _beneficiary_ is the entity which may be INDIRECTLY affected by an event. Here are some examples: John washed the dishes FOR his wife. They took up a collection FOR John's widow. Bill bought some flowers FOR his girlfriend. She built the doghouse FOR the new puppy. He cooked supper FOR the children. A close paraphrase for the English preposition "for" in the above examples would be something like 'on behalf of', 'for the sake of', or 'in the interest of'. A more comprehensive and accurate paraphrase would be 'to attempt to have an unspecified or generic positive effect on'. The concept of an 'attempt' makes this last paraphrase more accurate because there is no indication that the beneficiary actually experiences a change of state - only that an attempt is made. The label "beneficiary", however, is something of a misnomer, as can be seen in the following examples: He set the trap FOR the raccoon. I bought the itching powder FOR my roommate. The first example is sometimes called a _maleficiary_, since the intended effect is clearly detrimental. The second example is ambiguous, since it is not clear whether the itching powder was purchased to be used BY the roommate or ON the roommate. Thus, a more appropriate name for this case role is _secondary patient_, since it is not always obvious if the intended effect is good or bad. Here is an example of a standard paraphrase of this case role: He cooked supper for his wife. = In the event in which he cooked supper, he was attempting to have an unspecified effect on his wife. Thus, the semantics of the secondary patient are simple: the agent of the main verb is responsible for the main event while attempting to have an unspecified effect on a secondary patient. The context determines whether the intended effect is positive or negative. And the outcome is uncertain. Thus, in the sample language we are using here, the case tag is simply the 0/P derivation "gupe" which we derived earlier. Note that "gupe" can also be used where there is no agent, as in the following examples: That fish tasted lousy TO me. Sometimes, he's very nasty TO her. The play was boring TO/FOR me but not TO/FOR Bill. The trip was wonderful FOR all of us. The box was too heavy FOR him. Finally, if we need to specifically indicate that a good or bad effect is being attempted (i.e. 'on behalf of' versus 'against'), we can use the 0/P versions of the verbs 'to benefit' or 'to harm', respectively. 4.3.3 COMITATIVE (also called ACCOMPANIMENT or ASSOCIATIVE) The _comitative_ case role introduces additional participants in an event which are equal in function and importance to the SUBJECT of the verb. The English prepositions "with" or "along with" are normally used to mark the comitative case role. Here are some examples: He weeded the garden WITH his wife. They went to Boston WITH the children. She died in a plane crash ALONG WITH three other passengers. I ate supper WITH my family. [Do not confuse this usage with the instrumental sense of the word "with", as in "I ate supper WITH a fork", or with the manner sense as in "I washed the crystal WITH care". Natural languages have a bad habit of overloading their case tags. To add to the confusion, they rarely do it in the same way.] This case role is an unusual one, because it is actually an alternative to coordination, which is normally handled syntactically. Thus, the first example can be paraphrased as "He and his wife weeded the garden". Some readers may argue, however, that use of the case tag "with" implies a certain degree of subordination which is not implied as strongly when using coordination. This apparent subordination, however, is a pragmatic effect - not a semantic one - and is implied by the context. In different contexts, the subordinating effect can be reversed: Billy went to the movies with his parents. (Billy accompanied his parents, and he was somehow subordinate or less in-control than his parents.) The Simpsons travelled to Boston with the children. (The children accompanied their parents and were somehow subordinate or less in-control than their parents.) Thus, the implication of subordination, if any, can work both ways. Note, though, that the comitative argument is certainly less TOPICAL than the subject, which is to be expected since it is oblique. In other words, the comitative case tag introduces an argument that performs exactly the same semantic role as the subject. The only difference is that the argument is reduced in topicality compared to the subject. Consider the following: 1. Dad went to a movie WITH the kids. 2. The kids went to a movie WITH dad. In (1), "dad" is more topical than "the kids", while in (2) "the kids" is more topical than "dad". In both sentences, though, "dad" and "the kids" play EXACTLY the same semantic role. Now, if "Dad" and "the kids" were equally topical, we would instead say something like this: 3. Dad AND the kids went to a movie. In other words, a coordinating conjunction does not imply any significant difference in topicality. However, we can reduce the topicality of a PART of the subject by using the comitative. This should certainly sound familiar, since reducing the topicality of an argument is exactly what a grammatical voice change does. The only difference is that the comitative reduces the topicality of only a PART of the subject. In spite of this, it is still a grammatical voice change. Now that we've discussed the semantics of the comitative case role, let's see how we can implement it. At first sight, it seems that we have at least five options: Option 1: We can create A/P, AP/F, and P/F verbs with the general meaning 'to do with/be with/accompany' and derive case tags from them. The problem with this approach is that it is far too precise, since the case tags imply strong links to specific arguments of the main verb, and they precisely state whether they are static or dynamic. Thus, using this approach, we would have to create several "-s" and "-d" versions, even though natural language case markers are rarely, if ever, so precise. Option 2: We can create a 0/F verb using the same root as is used in the P/F-s verb 'to be with'. The case tag version of this verb would have the same range of role coverage as the comitative function of most natural languages, including English. However, it fails to capture the semantics correctly. Consider the following: He weeded the garden with his wife. = He weeded the garden 'being with' his wife. The 0/F case tag simply states that his wife was present - it does NOT indicate that she also did some of the weeding. Note that this objection also applies to option 1. [Incidentally, this same root can also be used to create words such as the AP/F-s verb 'to accompany', the reflexive AF/P-s verb 'to bring', the AP/F-d verb 'to join', the AP-d [+F] verb 'to join up', the A/F-d [+P] verb 'to incorporate/admit', the A/F-s [+P] verb 'to include', the P/F-s verb 'to be with', the P-s [-F] adverb 'along', etc. And, as we'll see later, it can also be used to create the reciprocal verb 'to assemble/gather'.] Option 3: We can insist that coordination be used instead of a case tag. Thus, the language would not allow a sentence like "He weeded the garden with his wife". Instead, it would have to be stated as "He and his wife weeded the garden". We could also create a conjunction that intentionally implies a certain degree of subordination, as in "He and-to-a-lesser-degree his wife weeded the garden". However, a conjunction does not reduce the topicality of an argument. Option 4: We could use the secondary agent, agent-patient, patient, and focus case tags which we derived earlier; i.e. "fiape", "piupe", "gupe", and "jope", respectively. However, this solution is not correct because these are SECONDARY case roles, and the roles they indicate may not be the same as the primary case roles. For example, as we saw when we discussed the beneficiary case role, a secondary patient may be somehow affected by the event, but not in the same way as the primary patient. Option 5: Thus, what we really need is a PRIMARY case role; i.e., one that indicates the same role as the subject of the verb. Consider the following sentence: She died in the plane crash with three other passengers. Here, the comitative entities "three other passengers" experienced exactly the same fate as the subject. Compare this with the beneficiary case role discussed earlier, where the secondary patient does NOT experience the same effect as the primary patient. Since the comitative is, in effect, a grammatical voice change, we can create a new class-changing morpheme that demotes a PART of the subject and makes it oblique. We can call this class-change the 'cosubject' derivation: cosubject -ne- demotes part of the subject and makes it obliquely expressable Thus, the corresponding case tag will be "nepe". As with passive and anti-passive, there is no need to mark the VERB with the cosubject morpheme, since doing so would be redundant. However, marking the verb IS useful if the demoted entity is NOT being expressed obliquely. In this case, the marked verb would imply that it has a cosubject even though the cosubject is not being expressed. We'll see examples of this later. We will also need a class-changing morpheme to indicate that an entity is specifically being EXCLUDED as a possible subject. The corresponding case tag will have the meaning 'without': non-subject -sau- an entity is specifically excluded from being subject Thus, the case tag meaning 'without' is "saupe". We will see additional uses for both case tags later, in the section on _modality_. Finally, some languages also have comitative case tags that link to the OBJECT of the verb rather than to the subject (the only language I know of that can do this is Mayali, Gunwinyguan family, Australia). English can do this occasionally, but only when the semantics and context make it impossible to interpret a link with the subject, as in "Bob sent her some flowers yesterday WITH a get-well card". Since this usage is quite rare, I recommend against creating a unique class-changing morpheme for it. (In fact, in my dialect of English, this usage sounds distinctly "odd", and can be just as easily implemented as "flowers AND a get-well card".) 4.3.4 LOCATION Most languages, including English, have several verbs that are inherently locative in nature, such as "to enclose", "to enter", "to arrive", "to exit", "to put", "to lower", etc. Almost all of these words can be derived from roots that will also be useful in the derivation of locative case tags and many other useful verbs, adverbs, and adjectives. For example, "to raise" is the A/P-d verb formed from the root meaning 'up (unfocused)' or 'above (focused)'; i.e., 'agent causes patient to become above an unspecified focus'. This root concept of 'up/above' can also be used to create the words meaning 'to rise', 'above', 'up', 'upwards', and so on. To illustrate this process, let's start with the basic state concept meaning 'located at' and try to derive as many useful words as possible from it. For this illustration, we will use the state verb root "-me-". Here is an example of a standard paraphrase of the English preposition "at": John studied law at Harvard. = In the event in which John studied law, he was at Harvard. And here are some of the words we can create using this concept (the default class for "-me-" will be P/F-s): mesi = memasi = P/F-s = 'to be located at/in' e.g. John mesi Boston = John is in Boston. mededa = memadeda = middle F-s [-P] noun = 'location/position' e.g. Its mededa is a secret = Its location is a secret. mepe = memape = P/F-s case tag = 'at/in' e.g. John works mepe Boston = John works in Boston. mesepe = P-s adverb = '(at) someplace', '(at) somewhere', 'at some unspecified place' e.g. He lost it mesepe = He lost it somewhere. medosi = P/F-d = 'to become located at', 'to get to' e.g. How did the table medosi the other room? = How did the table get to the other room? medope = P/F-d case tag = 'to' (destination location) e.g. I sent it medope Boston = I sent it to Boston. He ran medope the house = He ran to the house. mepiape = P-d adverb = '(to) someplace', '(to) somewhere', 'to some unspecified place' e.g. They moved it mepiape = They moved it somewhere. meguipe = P/F-p case tag = 'towards' (i.e. potential destination) e.g. We ran meguipe the house = We ran towards the house. Now, if we had a way to negate the meaning of the root, we could create words with meanings such as 'to be not-at = to be away from', 'to become not-at = to get away from', and so on. To accomplish this, I will introduce the new class- changing morpheme "-na-" with the meaning 'not' or 'other than'. With this suffix, we can derive a few more useful words: menasi = menamasi = P/F-s = 'to be not located at', 'to be away from' e.g. John menasi Boston = John is away from Boston. menape = menamape = P/F-s case tag = 'not at/in', 'away from' e.g. John attends school menape his home town = John attends school away from his home town. menasepe = P-s adverb = '(at) elsewhere', '(at) somewhere else', '(at) someplace else' e.g. They found it menasepe = They found it somewhere else. menadosi = P/F-d = 'to become located away from', 'to get away from' e.g. The boat menadosi the wharf = The boat got away from the wharf. menadope = P/F-d case tag = 'from', 'away from' (source location) e.g. I sent it menadope Boston = I sent it from Boston. He ran menadope the house = He ran (away) from the house. They cut the rope menadope the fence = They cut the rope away from the fence. menapiape = P-d adverb = 'away', '(to) elsewhere', '(to) somewhere else', '(to) someplace else' e.g. They chased the dog menapiape = They chased the dog away. He stored the papers menapiape = He moved the papers somewhere else. Note that the following useful words can also be derived from the root "me-", even though they are not needed to form case tags that represent English prepositions: A/P/F-d: mekosi = 'to move to', 'to place at/in', 'to put at/in' e.g. We mekosi the barrels the backyard. = We moved the barrels to the backyard. menakosi = 'to move away from', 'to remove from', 'to take away from' e.g. We menakosi the books the shelves. = We removed the books from the shelves. A/F-d [+P]: ("-ga-" is the affix for the anti-passive) menakogasi = 'to rid (of)' e.g. The workers menakosi the building gape mice. = The workers rid the building of mice. [Note that by using the anti-passive case tag "gape", it is not necessary to mark the verb itself as anti-passive.] A/P-d [+F]: ("-gue-" is the affix for the anti-anti-middle) mekoguesi = 'to put away', 'to put out' e.g. Please mekoguesi your toys. = Please put away your toys. menakoguesi = 'to take away', 'to take out' e.g. The trashman menakoguesi the old TV. = The trashman took away the old TV. A/F-d [-P]: ("-xi-" is the affix for the anti-middle) menakoxisi = 'to evacuate', 'to clear out' e.g. The police menakoxisi the village. = The police evacuated the village. AP/F-d: mesuasi = 'to reach', 'to arrive at/in', 'to come to' e.g. We mesuasi Atlanta at 3 PM. = We reached Atlanta at 3 PM. menasuasi = 'to leave/depart (transitive)', 'to go from' e.g. She just menasuasi the meeting. = She just left the meeting. AP-d [+F]: ("-miu-" is the affix for the anti-anti-passive) mesuagasi = 'to take a place', 'to position oneself', 'to settle down (idiomatic)' e.g. We mesuagasi as soon as we arrived. = We took our places as soon as we arrived. menasuagasi = 'to go out/off', 'to head out', 'to take off' e.g. We menasuagasi at 6 AM every morning. = We headed out at 6 AM every morning. A/P/F-s: metuesi = 'to keep at/in' e.g. She metuesi the stallion the barn. = She keeps the stallion in the barn. menatuesi = 'to keep away from' e.g. I menatuesi the dogs the chicken coop. = I keep the dogs away from the chicken coop. A/P-s [+F]: metuemiusi = 'to constrain', 'to keep in (place)', 'to limit/ restrict movement of' e.g. We metuemiusi the larger dog. = We restrict the movement of the larger dog. menatuemiusi = 'to keep out/away/at bay', 'to hold off' e.g. He menatuemiusi the mosquitos with a net. = He keeps the mosquitos away with a net. AP/F-s: mefisi = 'to attend', 'to stay/remain at' e.g. I mefisi the conference for three days. = I attended the conference for three days. menafisi = 'to avoid', 'to stay/remain away from' e.g. Bill menafisi his father at the wedding. = Bill avoided his father at the wedding. [The English verb "to avoid" can also have the sense of 'attempting to stay away from'; i.e., without implying that the agent was actually successful. To clearly indicate this sense, we could use the AP/F-p form of the verb, "menamisi".] AP-s [+F]: mefigasi = 'to stay put' e.g. I told the children to mefigasi. = I told the children to stay put. menafigasi = 'to stay out', 'to stay away' e.g. He menafigasi until sunrise. = He's staying out until sunrise. Note that in many of the English versions of the focused verbs, the focus is oblique (e.g. "to stay AT"). Thus, if we want to precisely emulate English, we will need to create and use the more verbose [+F] versions. However, this is probably not necessary because English doesn't really seem to make a distinction between the topicality of objects and the topicality of obliques. Finally, the above derivations are just examples using a SINGLE locative state concept. A language will need many other locative case tags. These tags will describe all of the possible states and relationships that are dealt with by English prepositions and adverbs, and will have such meanings as 'to be above', 'to be behind', 'to be inside', etc. In turn, these roots can be used to create many other useful words. For example, the root used to form the locative verb meaning 'to be inside' can also be used to create the oblique case tag 'inside of', the adverb 'inside', and other useful words such as English "to enter", "to insert", "inwards", "interior", etc. along with all of their opposites. 4.3.5 TIME Temporal case tags indicate the locus of an event in time. Consider the following examples: John bought the book IN March. We visited them WHEN we were in New York. They built the doghouse OVER the weekend. He lost weight SINCE the accident. She won't leave UNTIL she sees the boss. We met Janice DURING/ON our last visit. He plans to leave AT noon. I'll take a shower BEFORE I leave. Note that some English temporal case tags (e.g. "in", "over", and, "at") also have locative meanings, while others (e.g. "when", "since", and "until") have only temporal meanings. There are also locative case tags in English that are never used with temporal meanings (e.g. "along", "beneath", "against", "via"). One possible solution to the problem of creating temporal case tags would be to simply use locative case tags with temporal arguments. It is important to keep in mind, though, that different languages assign temporal meanings to locative case tags in different ways, if at all. If you decide to do this, then do it predictably and systematically. However, I do not feel that overloading locative case tags is a good way to implement temporal case tags. In my opinion, temporal case tags should be developed independently of locative case tags for the simple reason that they have very different meanings. Thus, we will have to create verbs with meanings such as 'to happen at', 'to happen after', 'to happen during', etc. Note that we can also state these verbs in terms of a position on a timeline, such as 'to be at a time locus during/after/etc'. Here is an example using our standard form of paraphrasing: John bought the car before he got married. = In the event in which John bought the car, the time locus was before he got married. Temporal case tags, like their locative counterparts, typically link to the patient of the verb, since they indicate the time locus of the patient when it experienced the state or change of state. Thus, in the above example, the case tag indicates WHEN the patient "John" underwent the change of ownership. Now, it's true that agents and foci often play their roles at the same time as the patient experiences the event, but not always. Consider the following: The riot angered the president. He realized his mistake when he got the bill. In the first example, the agent "the riot" could have occurred before 'the president became angry'. In the second example, the focus "his mistake" MUST have occurred before 'he got the bill'. Thus, temporal case tags must be derived from P/F verbs, since they describe the temporal location of the patient when it experiences the state or change of state. In fact, to emphasize the link to the patient, we will be more accurate if we paraphrase the relationship in terms of the word "being" rather than the word "happening". For example, it is more accurate to say "to BE during a time locus" rather than "to HAPPEN during a time locus". We can use the word "happen", where appropriate, in the English translations. Now, let's do a few sample derivations using the concept of 'before'. For these derivations, we will use the root "lunda-" which has a default class of P/F-s. [We'll see how this root is actually "derived" later, when we discuss tense and aspect.] Here are some of the more useful derivations: lundasi = lundamasi = P/F-s = 'to be at a point in time before', 'to precede', 'to happen/occur before' e.g. The accident lundasi the election. = The accident preceded the election. lundape = lundamape = P/F-s case tag = 'before' e.g. John got drunk lundape the party started. = John got drunk before the party started. lundasesi = P-s = 'to be at a point in time in the past relative to an unspecified focus', 'to be earlier' e.g. The accident lundasesi. = The accident occurred earlier. lundaseno = P/F-s adjective = 'past', 'previous', 'earlier' e.g. The lundaseno performances were much worse. = The past performances were much worse. lundasepe = P-s adverb = 'at a point in time in the past relative to an unspecified focus', 'earlier', 'in the past', 'previously', 'already' e.g. He left lundasepe. = He left earlier or He already left. lundadosi = P/F-d = 'to get to a point in time before' e.g. John lundadosi the party. = *John got to a time before the party. = Life went on for John until sometime before the party. = Life went on for John as the time for the party approached. = Time passed for John until sometime before the party. lundadope = P/F-d case tag = 'until sometime before', 'as the time for X approached' e.g. John washed the dishes lundadope the party. = *John washed the dishes as he got to a time before the party. = John washed the dishes until sometime before the party. = John washed the dishes as the time for the party approached. lundapiasi = P-d = 'to get to a point in the past relative to an unspecified focus' e.g. John lundapiasi. = *John got to a point in the past. = Life went on for John until some time in the past. lundapiape = P-d adverb = 'getting to a point in the past relative to an unspecified focus', 'as time passed', 'as the clock ticked off the minutes' e.g. John washed the dishes lundapiape. = John washed the dishes as time passed. lundapiano = P-d adjective = 'former', 'erstwhile' e.g. He just saw his lundapiano girlfriend. = He just saw his former girlfriend. [The P-s derivation "lundaseno" emphasizes that the situation occupied a locus in time in the past, and is thus closer in meaning to the English words "past" or "previous". The P-d derivation "lundapiano" emphasizes a transition through time in the past, and is thus closer in meaning to the English words "former" or "erstwhile".] The agentive derivations are not very useful in the real world, since they imply the ability to control the position or the movement of the patient along the timeline. The "-p" derivations are also not very useful, since they imply that the patient can POTENTIALLY move along the timeline; i.e., that time may not flow at the same rate for the patient as for everyone else. I will leave further speculation about the uses of these forms to those readers who are interested in relativity or time travel. Negative derivations with the root meaning 'not before' will be able to represent the compound concept 'at or after' for case tags and 'then or later' for adverbs. The "-s" forms will be very useful. The "-d" forms will be less useful, but will very efficiently represent indications of time that require extreme periphrasis in English. In any case, I will leave the detailed derivations as an exercise for the reader. Finally, the above derivations are just examples using a SINGLE temporal state concept. A language will need several other temporal case tags. These tags will describe all of the possible states and relationships that are dealt with by English prepositions and adverbs, and will represent such concepts as 'time after', 'time at', 'duration', 'frequency', etc. However, since time is one- dimensional, we won't need nearly as many temporal case tags as locative ones. Later, when we discuss tense and aspect, we will see how the roots for ALL temporal case tags can be effectively "derived". 4.3.6 REASON Many things happen as a result of earlier events, conditions, or situations. In English, these events are normally introduced by expressions such as "because", "because of", "in that", "as a consequence of", "(out) of", "from", etc. Here are some examples: John left early BECAUSE he had a headache. They guarded it carefully BECAUSE OF its great value. The book provides a useful resource, IN THAT it lists every restaurant a tourist should avoid. He was not allowed to participate AS A CONSEQUENCE OF his past behavior. He died OF/FROM a broken heart. They agreed to the terms OUT OF fear of retaliation. Note that some English forms are used exclusively with embedded sentences (i.e. "because" and "in that"), while the others require noun phrase arguments (i.e. "because of", "as a consequence of", "(out) of", and "from"). Since this case role represents the most basic form of indirect causation, we can paraphrase it as follows: John left early because of a headache. = In the event in which John left early, the indirect cause was a headache. Thus, in order to derive this case tag, we need the verb meaning 'to cause', which we derived earlier. Here it is again: A/P-d: "veyasi = veyapusi" - 'to cause/make/have/create', 'to cause to come into existence', 'to cause to be real/actual' Now, in order to create a case tag meaning 'because' or 'because of', we need to INVERT "veyasi" to create a link between the event described by the main verb and the secondary agent. Thus, the final result is the P/A-d form "veyavipe", where "-vi-" is the inverse CCM. Here's an example: John swerved veyavipe the runaway car. = John swerved because of the runaway car. Note that the verb form "veyavisi" would mean something like 'to result from', 'to be the result of', 'to come about as a result of', or 'to be a consequence of'. An example using this verb would be: The delay veyavisi the manager's lack of experience. = The delay resulted from the manager's lack of experience. Instead of "veyavipe", we could also use the generic 0/A case tag, "fiape". I can't decide which is best, since both "veyavipe" and "fiape" seem to accomplish exactly the same thing. Finally, the A/P-d case tag "veyape" is also useful, and would represent the English word "causing" in sentences such as "He swerved too quickly, causing the accident". 4.3.7 PURPOSE People often do things with specific goals in mind; i.e, with a particular purpose or intent. In English, we express purpose using such words and expressions as "to", "in order to", "in order that", "with the intent of", "so that", "for", etc. Here are some examples: John opened the window TO cool the room. Bill gave the kids candy IN ORDER TO keep them quiet. She wrote the letter WITH THE INTENT OF clarifying her earlier statements. I left SO THAT the baby could get some sleep. He shot his dad FOR the inheritance. Note though, that even though the intent of the agent is obvious, use of the case role does not always imply that the agent is successful: John opened the window to cool the room, but it was actually hotter outside. Bill gave the kids candy in order to keep them quiet, but they were noisy anyway. She wrote the letter with the intent of clarifying her earlier statements, but it, too, was misunderstood. In all cases, the agent of the main verb is attempting to cause a secondary event. Here is an example of a standard paraphrase of this case role: John opened the window to cool the room. = In the event in which John opened the window, he attempted to cause the room to become cooler. Thus, in order to express this meaning, we simply need the "-p" version of the verb meaning "to cause", which we used above to create the reason case tag. The result is the A/P-p verb "veyacesi", meaning 'to attempt to cause or bring about'. Here is an example using the verb form: John veyacesi the end of the meeting. = John tried to bring the meeting to an end. And here is an example using the case tag form "veyacepe": John lied veyacepe get his promotion. = John lied (in order) to get his promotion. Finally, a more 'cognitive' version of the purpose case tag could be created from a non-generic AP/F-s verb meaning 'to intend'. This case tag would be similar in meaning to the English expression "with the intent of". 4.3.8 MANNER The manner case tag describes HOW something happens. It can be paraphrased as "in the manner of" or "in an X manner", and answers the question "how did such-and-such occur". English implements the manner case using prepositions and adverbs. Here are some examples: He left the room IN haste. (preposition) He SECRETLY left the room. (adverb) He drove the car LIKE a madman. (preposition) He QUIETLY closed the door. (adverb) We've already seen how to convert verbs to adverbs, some of which function like English manner adverbs. There are times, however, when manner cannot be indicated with a simple adverb, as in the following examples (manner case tags are capitalized): The army raced through the town LIKE a destructive tidal wave. The truck drove WITH a lot of rattling. Their singing sounds LIKE wailing banshees. They left the room IN a great hurry. The preacher berated the congregation AS IF they were naughty children. Most manner case roles are indicated in English with the preposition "like". However, even here, we have two distinct senses. Consider the following: He drove the truck LIKE a tank. He drove the truck LIKE a madman. In the first sentence, the word "like" describes the behavior of the patient. In the second sentence, it describes the behavior of the agent. Also, the first sentence itself has two distinct interpretations: He drove the truck causing it to be like a tank. He drove the truck as if it were a tank. The best way to capture these distinctions as precisely as possible is to create case tags from a root morpheme meaning 'like' or 'similar'. In the sample language, we will assign the root "-lo-". The three verb derivations that are most useful here are as follows (default class = P/F-s): P/F-s: losi=lomasi 'to be similar to', 'to resemble', 'to be like' AP/F-s: lofisi 'to act similar to', 'to imitate' A/F-s [-P]: lotuexisi 'to cause to be similar to', 'to approximate' When converted to case tags, these three verbs will provide the needed semantics for the above manner expressions: "like a tank", "like a madman", "like a destructive tidal wave", "like wailing banshees" and "as if they were naughty children". In the last item, "as if they were naughty children" would be expressed as "like naughty children" where "like" would be implemented using the P/F form. Now, while the above three derivations are semantically precise, some people may object to having to learn three case tags instead of just one. In a situation like this, it may be advisable to use the non-specific 0/F classifier discussed earlier plus the root meaning 'similar'. Using this approach, the single, all-purpose, manner case tag will be "lojope". For the metaphoric example "the truck drove WITH a lot of rattling", we do not need a case tag at all. We simply use the simpler expression "the truck drove and rattled a lot" or "the truck drove, rattling a lot". For the metaphoric example "they left the room IN a great hurry", we again simplify, using something like "they left the room, hurrying a lot". Finally, manner is sometimes expressed in initial and final forms. Here is an example: His behavior changed from that of an arrogant prince to that of the humblest peasant. Here the expressions "from that of" and "to that of" can be implemented with the P/F-d forms "lonadope" = 'becoming not similar to' and "lodope" = 'becoming similar to'. 4.3.9 CASE TAGS FOR EXCHANGE VERBS In the section on verb semantics, we discussed the need for the additional case roles of secondary agent-patient and secondary focus in sentences such as: John sold the book to Bill for five dollars. Here, "John" is the primary agent-patient, "the book" is the primary focus, "Bill" is the secondary agent-patient, and "five-dollars" is the secondary focus. These are secondary roles because they do NOT play the same roles as the corresponding roles for the main verb, but they DO take part in the change of possession. English uses two separate case tags to indicate the secondary agent-patient, depending on the direction of transfer. These are "to" and "from", and are often referred to as _recipient_ and _donor_, respectively. However, there is really no need to implement two case tags, since the verb always indicates the direction of transfer. For example, in the following sentences, it's obvious who is the donor and who is the recipient: John sold the book "to or from" Bill. Bill bought the book "to or from" John. Sally gave the book "to or from" Mike. And for verbs like "swap", we use the more neutral preposition "with" for the secondary agent-patient: John swapped his book for a magazine WITH Bill. Thus, there is no need to implement two case tags for the "to/from" roles. Whenever there is a change of possession, the role indicated by the English prepositions "to", "from", and "with" is always specified by the verb, and using the case tag to indicate the direction of transfer is simply redundant. Also, note that the secondary focus uses the same English preposition "for", REGARDLESS of the direction of transfer, as in: He sold the bike FOR $50. He bought the bike FOR $50. He swapped the book FOR a magazine. Thus, both secondary roles can be derived in exactly the same way as the secondary patient (i.e. beneficiary) that we discussed earlier, by applying the appropriate classifier directly to the case tag terminator. Specifically, for the secondary focus, we only need the classifier for 0/F "-jo-" plus "-pe", with the final result "jope". For the secondary agent-patient, we need the 0/AP classifier "-piu-", with the final result being "piupe". 4.3.10 STATE Many verbs allow an expression that provides more information about the final state of the patient. Here are some examples: He drilled the board FULL OF HOLES. He sliced the meat INTO SMALL PIECES. The crowd shouted itself HOARSE The crowd shouted itself INTO A FRENZY. Linguists call these constructions _resultatives_. Its also possible, though, to specify initial states: He changed FROM A SOFT-SPOKEN LIBERAL to a religious fanatic. He built the doghouse OUT OF SCRAP LUMBER. He worked the gold FROM AN INGOT into a flat sheet. It's also possible (although rare) to specify a steady state. Compare the following two sentences: He kicked the door OPEN. (change-of-state) He held the door OPEN. (steady-state) In English, most steady states are handled with adverbs, as in the following examples: They GLADLY tagged along. He QUIETLY ignored his brother. She imitated her boss CONVINCINGLY. The lights are flashing RAPIDLY. Colors, though, are generally used in their adjective forms: The lights glowed red and blue. Thus, in English, initial states are introduced by the prepositions "from" or "out of". Final states which are represented by noun phrases use the prepositions "in" or "into". Final states which are represented by adjectives do not use any case role marker. Steady states use either adjectives (rarely) or adverbs (frequently). All of these situations can be dealt with quite easily in the current framework. For the manner case role, we introduced the verb "to be similar to" and its derivatives. For the state case role, we will need a verb meaning 'to be equal to' or 'to be the same as'. For example, if the root "-kapsu-" represents the state concept of 'equality', then the following case tags can be derived (default class = P/F-s): P/F-d: kapsudope = English "to/into" (literally "becoming the same as") kapsunadope = English "from/out of" (literally "becoming not the same as") Where English uses adjectives or adverbs, we would use the adverb form of the appropriate P-s or P-d verb. Also, note that the P/F-s verb "kapsusi=kapsumasi" is equivalent to the English copula "to be". However, since the concept of 'being' is an inherent feature of all of our P-s verbs and basic nouns, this verb will have very little use in our sample language. Consider the following: John is intelligent: John kapsusi tencida. OR John tencisi. John is a duck: John kapsusi guasuda. OR John guasusi. However, the verb "kapsusi" will still be useful when emphasis is needed or when the noun needs modification. Finally, do not confuse state case roles with the focus case role. Consider the following: Louise ran the marathon. Louise sang an aria. In both examples, the object is a focus. If it were a state, it would describe the state of Louise. In other words, it would indicate that Louise WAS a marathon or an aria. However, neither "marathon" nor "aria" describe the state of a patient - instead, they elaborate the events. 4.3.11 MEANS or METHOD The means case role elaborates what the agent is doing. In English, this case role is normally marked by the prepositions "via", "by", or "by means of". Here are some examples: He cooled the stew BY blowing on it. She explained BY MEANS OF a story. We solved the problem BY asking for help. He knocked the chair over BY kicking it. They isolated the virus VIA a new technique. I broke the dish BY accident. As we discussed earlier, a generic A/P/F-d action verb indicates that the agent successfully affects the patient BY MEANS OF the focus, without specifying the precise action that was used. We also derived a generic AP/F-s action verb "zefisi" which means 'to do (something)' where, again, the focus elaborates what the agent-patient is doing. Thus, the focus of these verbs is actually the means case role. However, which form of the verb should we use? The A/F-s [-P] form, the A/F-d [-P] form, the AP/F-s form, or the AP/F-d form? Since the means or method is an elaboration of the event indicated by the main verb, it also can be either static or dynamic. Thus, the only choice we have is to use the 0/F classifier "-jo-". Thus, the final result is the generic 0/F action case tag, "zejope". Finally, do not confuse the means/method case role with the reason case role. For example, in "He won the race BY practicing daily", the preposition "by" is really the reason case tag, as in "He won the race BECAUSE he practiced daily". Keep in mind that the means/method case role always elaborates the event. 4.4 SUMMARY OF CASE TAG FORMS In the preceding sections, we derived several case tags. Here is a list that allows us to compare their various forms: Primary case roles: Passive -> nupe generic + passive Anti-passive -> gape generic + anti-passive Comitative ('with') -> nepe generic + cosubject Non-subject ('without') -> saupe generic + non-subject Secondary generic case roles: Secondary Agent -> fiape generic + 0/A = Reason 'because (of)' Secondary Agent-patient -> piupe generic + 0/AP = Exchange 'to/from' Secondary Patient -> gupe generic + 0/P = Beneficiary 'for' Secondary Focus -> jope generic + 0/F = Exchange 'for' Secondary non-generic case roles: Instrument 'with' -> zepe root + A/P-s Means/Method 'by' -> zejope root + 0/F Locative 'at' -> mepe root + P/F-s Locative 'to' -> medope root + P/F-d Locative 'from' -> menadope root + not + P/F-d Locative 'towards' -> meguipe root + P/F-p Temporal 'before' -> lundape root + P/F-s Reason 'because (of)' -> veyavipe root + P/A-d OR fiape generic + 0/A Purpose '(in order) to' -> veyacepe root + A/P-p Manner 'like' -> lojope root + 0/F Manner 'from that of' -> lonadope root + not + P/F-d Manner 'to that of' -> lodope root + P/F-d State 'into' -> kapsudope root + P/F-d State 'from' -> kapsunadope root + not + P/F-d 4.5 INVERSION OF CASE ROLES Verb forms of case tags can be extremely useful when they are inverted. Here are some examples: John bought the book mepe Boston. = John bought the book in Boston. Boston MEVISI John bought the book. = Boston IS WHERE John bought the book. He broke the window zejope kicking it. = He broke the window by kicking it. Kicking the window ZEJOVISI he broke it. = Kicking the window IS HOW he broke it. He saw the procession zepe a telescope. = He saw the procession with a telescope. A telescope ZEVISI he saw the procession. = A telescope IS WHAT he USED to see the procession. = A telescope IS WHAT he saw the procession WITH. And so on. The precise implementation (word order, use of infinitives, participles, complementizers, etc.) will depend on the syntax of the AL. 4.6 ADDITIONAL USES OF THE FOCUS CASE ROLE For verbs describing mental states, the focus case role indicates the entity on which the patient's mental state is targeted or "focused". The focus of such verbs is always obvious and needs no further explanation. For verbs describing physical states, however, the focus is not always obvious. In fact, many physical verbs do not appear to have a focus at all. As we will see, though, ALL verbs can have a focus. For many, though, the focus is so strongly implied by the meaning of the verb that expressing it obliquely or as a direct object would be redundant. Before we try to deal with verbs that seem to be inherently unfocused, let's first re-examine the semantics of focus in more obvious situations. Remember, for a focused state verb, the patient experiences a steady state or undergoes a change of state IN ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE FOCUS. For example: 1. John needs money. 2. John owns the house. 3. John bought the house. In (1), we are describing a relationship between "John" and "money". The relationship is defined by the state concept "need". In (2) and (3), we are describing a relationship between "John" and "the house". The relationship is defined by the state concept "ownership", where (2) describes a steady state and (3) describes a change of state (number 3 also implies the use of money as a secondary focus). Thus, there is a relationship between the patient of the verb and the focus. Let's extend this idea to some simple static verbs: The country is rich "focus" oil. = The country is rich in oil. I'm angry "focus" Louise. = I'm angry at Louise. The house is free "focus" termites. = The house is free of/from termites. The little girl is afraid "focus" thunder. = The little girl is afraid of thunder. The box is heavy "focus" bricks. = The box is heavy with bricks. John is proud "focus" his father. = John is proud of his father. John is happy "focus" Louise. = John is happy for/about Louise. Note that the above examples can be expressed either as P/F-s verbs where the focus is the direct object, or as P-s [+F] verbs with an oblique focus. Thus, all of the English examples above are inherently anti-passive. Do not make the mistake of analyzing the above foci as reasons or indirect causes. For example, the sentence "The country is rich IN oil" does NOT mean the same as "The country is rich BECAUSE OF oil". We can also be quite specific, as in: John is wealthy "focus" $1,000,000. = John is wealthy to the tune of $1,000,000. John is tall "focus" 6 feet. = John is 6 feet tall. The box is heavy "focus" 10 kilograms. = The box weighs 10 kilograms. The new student is intelligent "focus" 160. = The new student has an intelligence (IQ) of 160. Now, let's extend the analogy further to the dynamic and agentive counterparts: P/F-d: The tank filled water. = The tank filled with water. A/P/F-d: We filled the tank water. = We filled the tank with water. A/P/F-d: He shortened the rope one meter. = He shortened the rope by one meter. A/P/F-d: The plants grew six inches. = The plants grew by six inches. Thus, for dynamic verbs, the focus is some entity or property that the patient is associated with, and the patient changes in its relationship with the focus. Also note, that when precise quantities are specified, they represent the actual, current magnitude for "-s" verbs, and the change in magnitude for "-d" and "-p" verbs. Thus, the focus of the P/F-s "to be long" indicates the current length, while the focus of the P/F-d verb "to lengthen" indicates the change in length. We can also create examples where the focus is abstract: He formatted the document "focus" company standards. = He formatted the document according to company standards. In other words, the document is in a relationship with a company standard, and the nature of the relationship is indicated by the verb "formatted". For some verbs, though, the focus is so strongly implied that expressing it separately seems redundant: The recession impoverished his family (?of money). The cat killed the mouse (?of life). The boys broke the window (?of its structure). We should be able to apply the same logic to specify a focus for verbs that, on first examination, appear to be inherently unfocusable, even if the result is redundant. For example, what could the focus be in the following sentence: John managed the company. (A/P-s) When something is managed, it has operations or other components that can be controlled: John managed the company (?in its operations). However, if the focus adds detail that is not implied by the verb, then a specific focus is not only acceptable but very useful: John managed the company in its overseas operations. For actions, the root of the verb defines what the agent is doing - NOT the state of the patient. Thus, a focus must elaborate the action rather than any relationship with the patient. Consider the following: The warrior struck the peasant. (A/P-d) Again, we can focus the action only if it provides more detail, as in: The warrior struck the peasant a mighty blow to the head. (A/P/F-d) In other words, the focus of an action is a more detailed description of the action itself. Note that this is exactly what happens with speech acts, where the focus describes the actual message being conveyed (e.g. "John told the kids A STORY"). Thus, for many verbs, the focus is an inherent part of the meaning of the verb; i.e., it is _lexicalized_. A specific focus only makes sense if it provides more detailed information. Finally, there are indeed concepts that are inherently unfocusable. However, these are not true state or action concepts, and will not be derived as basic verbs. We'll have more to say about them later, when we discuss _deictics_. 4.7 THE OBVIATIVE VOICE Oblique phrases in a sentence modify the event described by the verb and its arguments. In addition, an oblique phrase almost always establishes a strong bond with one of the main arguments of the verb. Consider the following examples: Active, A/P-d: John killed the rat quickly with a knife. Passive, P-d [+A]: The rat was killed quickly with a knife. Middle, P-d [-A]: ?The rat killed quickly with a knife. Active, P-d: *The rat died quickly with a knife. Here, the preposition "with" is the instrumental case tag, and is derived from the A/P-s verb 'to use'. Thus, "with" can be paraphrased as 'using' in the above examples, and the agent "John" is the effective subject of the verb "use". In other words, since the subject of the case tag is an agent, the case tag binds the agent of the main sentence to the object of the case tag. If the main verb does not have an agent, the instrumental case tag "with" cannot be used since it has nothing to bind to. Note that the middle voice example is questionable because the agent is almost totally suppressed. The final example is definitely ungrammatical because the sentence does not have an agent, even an implied one. Usually, it's obvious when an argument is bound to an oblique phrase. For example, in "He shoved the box into the room", the case tag "into" clearly indicates the final state of the direct object "box" while saying nothing about the agent. The reason for this is that the case tag "into" is derived from a P/F-d verb meaning 'to become in'. Since the effective subject of the case tag is a patient, it binds to the patient of the main verb. If the main sentence did not have a patient, then the case tag could not be used. Now, there may be times when we'll need to bind a P/F case tag to the FOCUS of the main sentence. At first glance, this would seem to be impossible, since we would be trying to bind a focus with a focus. In other words, we would need to start the derivation of such a case tag with an F/F verb, which is not semantically possible. However, this need DOES exist. Consider the following examples: 1. I hear the symphony. 2. *I hear the symphony like a wailing banshee. 3. *The symphony is heard (by me) like a wailing banshee. 4. *The symphony hears like a wailing banshee. In the above examples, the case tag "like" is the manner case tag which we derived earlier and which is derived from the P/F-s verb meaning 'to be like, be similar to, or resemble'. Thus, the case tag "like" is trying to bind "a wailing banshee" to "I", since "I" is the patient of the main verb. The result, of course, is gibberish. There is a way, though, to achieve the desired effect: 5. The symphony sounds (to me) like a wailing banshee. It seems obvious that the verb "to sound" must be a derivation of the verb "to hear", but exactly what kind of derivation is it? In examples 1 and 2, the verb "to hear" is P/F-s (active), in example 3 it is F-s [+P] (passive), and in example 4 it is F-s [-P] (middle). The verb "to sound" in example 5, however, also appears to be F-s [+P], yet it is clearly not a passive construction. Is there another way to derive an F-s [+P] verb? Yes. There are two ways that an F-s [+P] verb can be derived: P/F-s -> F-s [+P] or P/F-s -> F/P-s -> F-s [+P] The first derivation is a simple passive. The second derivation is the combination of an inverse followed by an anti-passive. For the sake of brevity, I will refer to this second pathway as an _obviative_ voice change because of its similarity to a process that occurs in some natural languages. For example, Plains Cree (Algonquian) sometimes use a combination of an inverse voice change plus obviative case marking on the topicalized noun to achieve an effect that is similar to the one that we're discussing here. In our sample language, we will implement the obviative voice alteration as follows: obviative: -viga- changes P/F-x to F-x [+P], allowing case tag to bind to focal subject Note that "-viga-" is simply the combination of the inverse CCM "-vi-" and the anti-passive CCM "-ga-". I must emphasize that the semantics of the obviative differ significantly from the semantics of the passive. In the passive, the focus is made more topical than the patient. In the obviative, the focus is first made more topical than the patient by an inverse voice change. Then, it is made EVEN MORE topical by an anti-passive voice change. In other words, the topicality of the focus is increased twice. With the passive or middle construction, the topicality of the focus is increased only once. The net result is that the topicality of the focus increased so much that it became an EFFECTIVE patient, allowing itself to be bound to the manner phrase. In general, then, the obviative voice alteration allows a case tag which normally binds to the patient of a main verb to bind to the focus of the main verb. For example, the semantics of the manner bond can be paraphrased as something like 'patient experiences a relationship with focus, and focus is like X'. Let's see how productive this can be: I see Bill, and he's like a zombie. P/F-s: *I see Bill like a zombie. Passive: *Bill is seen (by me) like a zombie. Obviative: Bill looks (to me) like a zombie. I noticed/caught sight of Bill, and he was like a bat out of hell. P/F-d: *I noticed Bill like a bat out of hell. Passive: *Bill was noticed (by me) like a bat out of hell. Obviative: Bill appeared (to me) like a bat out of hell. I smell the soap, and it's like cheap perfume. P/F-s: *I smell the soap like cheap perfume. Passive: *The soap is smelled (by me) like cheap perfume. Obviative: The soap smells (to me) like cheap perfume. I taste the cake, and it's like sawdust. P/F-s: *I taste the cake like sawdust. Passive: *The cake is tasted (by me) like sawdust. Obviative: The cake tastes (to me) like sawdust. I feel the page, and it's like sandpaper. P/F-s: *I feel the page like sandpaper. Passive: *The page is felt (by me) like sandpaper. Obviative: The page feels (to me) like sandpaper. Thus, it can be useful. However, all of the above are verbs of perception that specifically refer to the five human senses. Let's see if the voice change is useful with other verbs: I own the Jaguar, and it's like a gift from heaven. P/F-s: *I own the Jaguar like a gift from heaven. Passive: *The Jaguar is owned (by me) like a gift from heaven. Obviative: The Jaguar ??? (to me) like a gift from heaven. I divorced Louise, and she was like an angel. AP/F-d: *I divorced Louise like an angel. Passive: *Louise was divorced (by me) like an angel. Obviative: Louise ??? (to me) like an angel. I love Louise, and she's like an angel. AP/F-s: *I love Louise like an angel. (wrong meaning) Passive: *Louise is loved (by me) like an angel. Obviative: Louise ??? (to me) like an angel. The only way the above sentences can work in English is by replacing the question marks by a verb such as "to seem" or "to be". In doing so, though, we lose the meaning of the original verbs 'own', 'divorce', and 'love'. In summary, English implements the obviative by means of suppletion (e.g. "see/look" and "hear/sound"), by using the same verb unchanged (e.g. "feel", "taste", and "smell"), or by periphrasis involving two distinct clauses. I strongly suspect that if English had a formal obviative construction, it would be used quite often. Finally, since combining the inverse with the ANTI-PASSIVE is quite useful, would it also be useful to combine the inverse with the PASSIVE? The answer is probably "no". Using the obviative, we topicalize the focus twice, which is quite a significant change in semantics. If we first invert and then passivize, however, we will increase the topicality of the focus and then immediately decrease it with little or no net result. 5.0 OPEN ARGUMENTS AND MODIFIERS Since verbs can be converted to oblique, verb-modifying case tags and adverbs, why not apply the same logic to create the equivalent of English prepositional phrases that can function as either noun phrases (e.g. "the man WITH THE RED HAT") or adjective phrases (e.g. "countries RICH IN OIL")? By its very nature, a verb has arguments. When other parts of speech are derived from verbs, they can also have arguments. Thus, an adverb modifies the verb but takes no additional arguments of its own. A case tag, however, modifies the verb in the same way while adding one or two new arguments to the verb. In effect, a case tag is an _open_ verb modifier, since its non-subject arguments are available for use. An adverb, however, is a _closed_ verb modifier, since it cannot take any more arguments. The same distinction can be made with other parts of speech that are derived from verbs. For example, the nouns and adjectives that we've seen so far are all closed, since they take no arguments of their own. In this section, we will discuss what happens when we 'open them up'. In order to do this, though, we first need to summarize what we've done so far, and introduce a few new rules: 1. The part-of-speech of a word in our sample language is indicated by the word terminator: -si = verb -pe = verb modifier (i.e. case tags or adverbs that modify verbs) -da = noun -no = noun modifier (i.e. adjective) -di = previous-word modifier (e.g. adverbs that modify adjectives) 2. By definition, verbs and verb modifiers are inherently open. Nouns, noun modifiers, and previous-word modifiers are inherently closed. 3. Three new terminators will be assigned that will open up the argument structure of words that are inherently closed. They are: -giu = open noun -bie = open noun modifier (i.e. open adjective) -nia = open previous-word modifier 4. An appropriate grammatical voice operation can be performed to close the argument structure of words that are inherently open. Note that rule (1) introduces a new part-of-speech indicated by "-di". Words with this ending will always modify the immediately preceding word, regardless of its part-of-speech. Thus, they can be used to implement English adverbs that modify adjectives (e.g. "RECENTLY married couple", "RAPIDLY flowing stream", etc.). And, as we will see later, this part-of-speech will be very useful in other applications. [Incidentally, we are defining this new part-of-speech as a "previous-word" modifier because, later, we will open up its argument structure and allow it to modify the word it follows while being followed by its own argument. This can be done more easily if we adopt a pure right-branching syntax. English does something like this with adjectives. An unfocused adjective precedes the noun it modifies, while a focused adjective follows the noun; cf. "rich countries" vs. "countries rich in oil".] Rule (2) is nothing new and simply re-iterates and formalizes what we've been doing all along. Rule (3) can be used to create nouns, adjectives, and adjective modifiers that take arguments. I will illustrate how to do this below. Rule (4) simply re-iterates something we already know. That is, we can apply grammatical voice operations to remove one or more arguments from a verb, effectively closing it. This will allow us to create verb-modifying adverbs that do NOT take arguments of their own from verbs that normally take objects. For example, passive forms can be used to create adverbs such as "unexpectedly", "repeatedly", "amusedly", "warnedly", etc. Anti-passive forms can be used to create adverbs with meanings such as "destructively", "lovingly", "oppressively", "knowingly", etc. Finally, because of these new additions, we must expand our definition of the terminator category to the following: Terminator ::= da | di | giu | nia | bie | no | pe | si 5.1 OPEN ADJECTIVES By opening up the argument structure of adjectives, we can create words that represent the functions of many English prepositions. Consider the following examples: the book WITH the red cover ("with" = 'having') the cup ON the table ("on" = 'being located on') the circus AT the fairgrounds ("at" = 'being located at') the can OF beans ("of" = 'containing') the magazine UNDER the box ("under" = 'being under') the pile OF junk ("of" = 'consisting of') the pound OF beef ("of" = 'consisting of' the building ACROSS the street ("across" = 'being across') the paper BY Smith ("by" = 'having Smith as agent') Note that all of the above (except the agentive "by") must use the P/F-s forms of the appropriate verb. Each open adjective will link a noun with the argument of the adjective. Here are a few derivations using morphemes we've already defined: agent -> fiabie e.g. the book by Mark Twain for -> gubie e.g. the party for Jill at -> mebie e.g. the man at the corner to -> medobie e.g. the letter to Louise from -> menadobie e.g. the letter from Louise before -> lundabie e.g. the day before the party reason -> veyavibie OR fiabie e.g. the delay veyavibie Joe = the delay caused by Joe purpose -> veyacebie e.g. the petition for his release method -> zejobie e.g. death by strangling state -> kapsunadobie e.g. the hut kapsunadobie straw = the hut made (out) of straw And so on. Note that verbs that have had their argument structure inverted (with a voice-changing morpheme) can also be converted to open adjectives. This would allow you to handle distinctions such as "the man owning the house" vs. "the house belonging to the man". I leave the actual implementation as an exercise for the reader. Open adjectives created in this way, however, are often more precise than is really needed. For example, in the noun phrase: the book WITH the red cover ("with" = "having as a component") the relationship between the book and its cover is vague enough that we don't really need to derive the open adjective from the verb meaning "to have as a component". Instead, we can use the secondary generic P/F-s open adjective, "mabie". I would also suggest using "mabie" for all of the above examples that use the English preposition "of". Keep in mind that interpretations of "mabie" can be different depending on context, since the generic root morpheme does not indicate a specific relationship. Out of context, an accurate paraphrase of "the box mabie toys" would be "the box having an unspecified relationship with toys". Thus, a likely translation would be "the box OF toys". This non-specific relationship is, of course, precisely the meaning of the English preposition "of" and its many counterparts in other languages (cf. "a box full OF toys" vs. "a box bereft OF toys"). Since the derivation of open adjectives is essentially the same as the derivation of case tags, I won't spend much more time on it here. In general, most case tags will have adjective counterparts, especially the locative ones. Also, keep in mind that different languages implement these functions in different ways. For example, in many languages, they are neither adpositions nor inflections, but are implemented as relative clauses (e.g. "the boy in the kitchen" = "the boy who is in the kitchen"). Also, a few languages, such as English, allow case tags to be used, unmodified, as open adjectives. However, I strongly recommend against this because case tags and open adjectives are semantically distinct, and because conflating them often results in attachment ambiguities. For example, in the sentence "I spoke with the lady in the storeroom", is "in" a case tag that links to the verb "spoke", or is it an open adjective that links to the noun "lady"? Besides, natural languages that use the same word for both roles, including English, often do so idiosyncratically. Consider the following: I put the box UNDER the bed. The box UNDER the bed is empty. The man walked INTO the room. *The man INTO the room is my brother. The man WHO WALKED/CAME INTO the room is my brother. He built the doghouse OUT OF plywood. *The doghouse OUT OF plywood is not as good as the plastic one. The doghouse MADE OF plywood is not as good as the plastic one. They delayed the operation BECAUSE OF his death. ?The delay BECAUSE OF his death was unavoidable. The delay CAUSED BY/DUE TO his death was unavoidable. The boy HAS a red hat. *The boy is WITH a red hat. The boy WITH the red hat is her son. In other words, sometimes the case tag is the same as the open adjective, while other times it is not. When it is not the same, it is either periphrastic or idiosyncratic. Open adjectives are not only useful for creating the equivalents of English prepositions. They can also be used to create adjective phrases. Here are a few English examples: My BEER DRINKING buddies recommend brand X. Countries RICH IN NATURAL RESOURCES should be more generous. I just bought a WOOD BURNING stove. Homes BELONGING TO THE POOR are taxed at a lower rate. ['to belong to' = inverse of 'to own'.] The number of children BITTEN BY DOGS decreased last year. ['to be bitten by' = inverse of 'to bite'.] The actual word order of the constituents of an adjective phrase will, of course, depend on the syntax of your AL. The last two examples illustrate how an inverse construction can be used where English requires either a different verb (i.e. "to belong to") or a passive construction plus a preposition (i.e. "to be bitten by"). Note that the separate words meaning 'to' and 'by' are NOT used with true inverse forms. 5.1.1 "ABOUT" VERB ARGUMENTS Some English verbs allow objects that begin with the preposition "about". Here are some examples: She wrote about her childhood. They know about the problem. We heard about his promotion. I thought about what she said. You argued about money. He told me about the project. This is especially common with speech act verbs, since the missing headword is always obvious from the meaning of the verb. Thus, "he told me about X" can be paraphrased as "he told me words about X", where "words" elaborates the speech act. However, in the system proposed here, a separate word equivalent to "about" is simply not necessary, since the argument of "about" is, in fact, the focus of the verb. Thus, in the sample language, we can simply state "She wrote her childhood". If we need to specify the degree in which the focus is involved, we can use an appropriate headword plus the generic linker "mabie": She wrote something mabie her childhood = She wrote something about her childhood. She wrote a lot/everything/nothing mabie her childhood = She wrote a lot/everything/nothing about her childhood. [We'll discuss how to derive the words meaning 'something', 'a lot', and so on later.] 5.2 OPEN NOUNS By opening up the argument structure of nouns, we can create more complex noun phrases without having to resort to the use of prepositions, relative clauses or other subordinate constructions. Here are a few English examples: CHEMISTRY STUDENTS should register tomorrow. [Here, "student" is the open noun "teyomigiu" and is immediately followed by the noun meaning 'chemistry'.] They hired a TERMITE EXTERMINATOR. BASEBALL PLAYERS get payed too much. I am no longer a COFFEE DRINKER. In all of the above, since we are using the noun version of a verb, and since this represents a generic subject, the subject position is automatically filled. Thus, we can say "chemistry students" where "chemistry" is a noun, but we cannot say "boy students", where "boy" is also a noun (although we CAN use the adjective version of "boy"). If we first invert a verb and then use its open noun form, the original subject position becomes available while the original object position becomes automatically filled. For example, the inverse-noun form of "to study" would correspond to the English words "subject" or "topic". If we then open it up, we can create an expression like "subject John", which would be equivalent to the English expressions "John's subject of study" or "the subject that John is studying". Later, when we discuss class-changing morphemes in more detail, we will be able to derive process nouns from verbs, such as "destruction" from "to destroy". If we open up process nouns, BOTH argument positions will have to be filled. This will allow us to emulate English expressions such as "the destruction of the city by the enemy" without the need for prepositions. We can also create open noun versions of basic nouns. Earlier, when we discussed the conversion of basic nouns to verbs, we saw how these verbs could be focused. Here again are some of the examples we used: We 'treed' three acres WITH ELM AND OAK. They landed the plane ON RUNWAY THREE. He penciled the sign WITH GRAFFITI. I glued the envelope TO THE BOX. Note that the object of each sentence is the patient and the argument of each preposition is the focus. If we eliminate the agent, we can get expressions like the following: three acres "of" elm and oak the plane "of" runway three the sign "of" grafitti the envelope "of" the box where "of" can be better paraphrased as "having been brought together with". Thus, we can obtain the equivalent of the above phrases by opening up a P/F-s version of the basic noun. Now, since a basic noun has the class P-s by default when converted to a verb, it makes no sense to open it up without first adding an appropriate verb classifier to give it an object. Let's take advantage of this by adopting the rule that using the open noun terminator "-giu" with a basic noun will convert the default class to P/F-s (classifier "-ma-"). In other words, if a basic noun ends with "-giu" but does not have a verb classifier, then it will be equivalent to "... magiu". Here are some examples: naida - 'natural location/place/spot' guajida - 'hot spring' naigiu guajida - 'place of/having hot springs', 'hot spring locale' teyoteda - 'school' teyofiuda - 'robot' teyotegiu teyofiuda - 'school of/for/having robots', 'robot school' guanaida - 'lake' guasuda - 'duck' guanaigiu guasuda - 'lake of/for/having ducks', 'duck lake' 5.3 ADJECTIVE MODIFIERS Closed previous-word modifiers can be used to implement English adverbs that modify adjectives. Here are some English examples: The POORLY built homes collapsed in the earthquake. He emptied the PARTIALLY filled can. The EXTENSIVELY mined pit was an eyesore. QUICK-frozen vegetables taste better than canned vegetables. I really enjoy PROPERLY prepared seafood. Note that the above adjective-modifying adverbs are the same as verb-modifying adverbs except that the terminator would be "-di" rather than "-pe". The system proposed here also allows us to create OPEN previous-word modifiers (terminator = "-nia"); i.e. words which modify adjectives, adverbs, etc. and which take an argument and link it to the previous word. We'll see how this can be useful later, when we discuss _comparatives_. 5.4 SEMANTICS OF OPEN NOUNS AND MODIFIERS Some readers may object to the creation of open nouns and open adjective modifiers, claiming that they are simply short cuts for subordinate clauses. While it's true that they can sometimes be used in this way, they are usually quite different because they cannot be modified for tense, aspect, or modality. For example, consider the following: My beer-drinking buddies think ... versus My buddies (who are) drinking beer in the corner over there think ... My buddies who shouldn't drink beer so much think ... My buddies who drank the beer that had gone bad think ... My buddies who may be drinking beer tomorrow night think ... and so on. In effect, the phrase "beer-drinking" says nothing about WHEN the event occurred, nor does it provide additional details about WHERE the event occurred, HOW it occurred, etc. In other words, an open modifier like this is indefinite, because it does not describe a PARTICULAR event. [Linguists refer to phrases such as these as _non-finite_. Phrases which are modified for tense, aspect, and modality are called _finite_.] Now, it is certainly possible to design your AL so that a subordinate clause can be explicitly marked to indicate that it is non-finite. However, the result will be longer and less iconic (i.e., long utterances should convey more information than shorter utterances). Also, if you apply this reasoning rigorously, you'll have to eliminate case tags and open adjectives, and replace them with some kind of ad hoc creations. It is important to keep in mind that the intent of open modifiers is to allow the creation of non-finite and indefinite forms which are as efficient as possible. These constructions are NOT intended to be used as shortcuts for subordinate clauses, although they can sometimes be used in this way. In general, the syntax of your AL should allow all possible forms of finiteness and definiteness in subordinate clauses, while restricting this freedom with open modifiers. For example, your syntax should NOT allow an open modifier to be marked for tense, aspect, or modality. And, as we will see later, this lack of 'definiteness' makes open nouns and modifiers extremely useful in the creation of compounds. Finally, although the argument structure of the original verb is available for use in open modifiers, keep in mind that an open modifier IS NO LONGER A VERB. Thus, it cannot be further modified by adverbs or case tags, although it CAN be modified by a modifier of the appropriate class. For example, an open noun can be further modified by an open or closed adjective, but it can NOT take an oblique argument introduced by a case tag. 6.0 CLASS-CHANGING MORPHEMES We've already discussed class-changing morphemes which perform grammatical voice changes and which make mass/count/group distinctions. In this section, I would like to discuss some of the other class-changing morphemes (henceforth CCMs) that will be needed by a language. Important Note: I will be using the abbreviation "CCM" extensively throughout the remainder of this monograph. First, though, it's important to emphasize that a CCM changes the CLASS of a word. That is, it changes the basic nature of the word - it does NOT change the basic meaning of the root. Thus, when a CCM is applied to an existing class, it, in effect, creates a new class. In the process, the way the word interacts syntactically with other words in the sentence may also change. For example, a grammatical voice alteration changes the argument structure of the verb. In our sample language, when suffixed to an existing classifier, the CCM will create a new class which, in turn, may be further modified. If a classifier is not provided, then the default class will be modified. Just to get into the swing of things, here are some new applications of CCMs that we are already familiar with: -de- Middle voice CCM The noun version of the middle voice alteration has the meaning of a prototypical, generic object of the unmodified verb. The adjective version represents the prototypical qualities of the generic object expressed attributively, but with the original subject almost completely suppressed, and thus, usually corresponds to English words ending in "-able" or "-ible". "teyosi=teyomasi" = 'to know' -> "teyodeda" = 'a fact', 'a datum', 'an item of knowledge' -> "teyodeno" = 'knowable' [Compare the above with the passive forms "teyonuda" and "teyonuno", which would have the meanings 'something which is known' and 'known', respectively. With the passive forms, the original subject still has a strong presence. In the middle forms, however, the original subject is almost completely eliminated. Even so, the English gloss 'knowable' does not precisely capture the meaning of the derivation, since it is still possible to express the original subject, as in "knowable by someone". In general, the sense of the adjective forms can be best paraphrased in English as "suitable for X-ing".] "teyokosi" = 'to teach' -> "teyokodeda" = 'pupil' -> "teyokodeno" = 'teachable' "teyomisi" = 'to study' -> "teyomideda" = 'subject' -> "teyomideno" = 'studiable' "guapusi" = 'to liquify' -> "guapudeno" = 'liquifiable' "paipusi" = 'to energize' -> "paipudeno" = 'energizable' "zesi=zezoyasi" = 'to use' -> "zedeno" = 'usable' "mesuasi" = 'to reach/ -> "mesuadeda" = 'destination' to arrive at' -> "mesuadeno" = 'reachable' [Open adjective constructions with meanings such as 'teachable by', 'usable by', etc. can be achieved with the passive CCM "-nu-" instead of the middle CCM "-de-". However, these English constructions seem to be quite rare. I believe that, in most cases, the agent is so strongly suppressed that a middle construction is more appropriate.] -senje- Group CCM "teyodeda" = 'fact/datum' -> "teyodesenjeda" = 'data' "teyomideda" = 'subject' -> "teyomidesenjeda" = 'curriculum' -jazmi- Mass CCM "teyodeda" = 'fact/datum' -> "teyodejazmida" = 'information' "teyomideda" = 'subject' -> "teyomidejazmida" = 'subject matter' Note that we did not derive words such as "knowledge" above. This is because "knowledge" implies both the facts and the ability to work with them. In other words, it involves the whole verb - not just a single argument of the verb. We'll discuss how to deal with this later. The count/group/mass CCMs can also be used as roots. The count CCM "-gi-" converts its argument to something that can be treated as one or more discrete units. Thus, it can provide a state root with the meaning 'distinct', 'discrete', or 'separate', where the focus would represent the referent (i.e., what the patient is distinct from). Since this is inherently relational, we will assign the default class P/F-s. Here are some examples: P/F-s: gino = gimano - distinct, stand-alone, separate gisi - to be distinct from P-s: giseno - particular, discrete, specific giseda - entity, thing/person/item/etc. A/P-d: gipusi - to single out A/P/F-s: gituesi - to differentiate P from F, to be the reason why P is distinct from F It is important not to confuse the above with the locative senses of 'apart' or 'away from'. The count CCM simply implies that the patient can be treated as a distinct entity (even if they are at the same location). The group CCM "-senje-" indicates that its argument consists of more than one similar or identical units that can be treated as a single, logical entity in which the parts contribute to the operation or function of the whole. Thus, it conveys the sense of the English word "group" only when it also has the sense 'company', 'assemblage/assembly', or 'association' as in "company of actors", or "association of medical professionals". It does NOT convey the sense of the English word "bunch", which implies incoherence and lack of function. Thus, an "assemblage of tools" would correspond to a 'tool kit', but a "bunch of tools" would not. An "assemblage of grass" would correspond to a 'lawn', but a "bunch of grass" would not. In other words, the group CCM implies a strong sense of purpose or association, unlike the generic state derivations which imply a very weak sense of association and which never imply a sense of common function or purpose. Thus, "-senje-" creates a functional grouping of its arguments, and, as a root it will have the meaning 'patient is a member of an association/assembly/ company/logical or functional grouping indicated by the focus'. Since this is inherently relational, the default class will be P/F-s. Here are some examples: P/F-s: senjesi - to be a member of, to belong to, to be part of senjeda - member F/P-s: senjevida - assemblage/company/grouping/association/ club/society senjevigiu - an assemblage/company/association of P/F-d: senjedosi - to become a member of AP/F-d: senjesuasi - to join AP-d [-F]: senjesuadesi - to join up AP-d [+F]: senjesuagasi - to sign up (with), to enlist/enroll (in) AP/F-s: senjefisi - to associate/affiliate with, to be in league with The mass CCM "-jazmi-" indicates that its argument is a homogeneous mass, which implies that it can be divided into a greater number of masses of equal homogeneity. Thus, the mass CCM represents the inherently scalar state concept of 'homogeneous', 'uniform', or 'consistent'. Since this is an inherently scalar state, the default class will be P-s. Here are two examples (we'll see additional examples later): P-s: jazmino = jazmiseno - uniform, homogeneous, consistent A/P-d: jazmipusi - to blend, to homogenize So, what other CCMs are needed? Below is a list of a few CCMs that I feel are most useful. The list is only partial, and I'm sure we could come up with several more. [In fact, if you have any good candidates for the list, please let me know!] -fu- Infinitive CCM The infinitive CCM is used when the verb is part of an embedded sentence and when its subject is the closest preceding argument of the outer verb. The English equivalent is the particle "to", as in "John wants to go now" or "He tried to open the door" or "I told the children to sit down". Be careful not to confuse the infinitive with the purpose case role, as in "Bill opened the window (in order) to cool off the room". -ve- Essential quality CCM and 'ability' For basic nouns, the essential and distinctive quality of the entity; i.e., what it 'has' that uniquely identifies it. For basic verbs, the essential and distinctive quality of a prototypical, generic subject. For derivations from agentive verbs, the meaning will indicate some kind of skill or capability. Most English equivalents will end in "-ness" or "-ity". To determine the closest English equivalent, ask the question: "What essential and distinctive quality does the entity or a prototypical subject of the verb 'have'?" Examples: "teyosi" = 'to know' -> "teyoveda" = 'knowledge' "teyokosi" = 'to teach' -> "teyokoveda" = 'teaching ability' "tencisi" = 'to be -> "tenciveda" = 'intelligence/ intelligent' smartness' "guaniuda" = 'broth' -> "guaniuveda" = 'brothiness' "losi" = 'to be -> "loveda" = 'similarity' similar to' "xausi" = 'to be hot' -> "xauveda" = 'heat/hotness' [Do not confuse this with the more technical term "xaupaida", meaning 'thermal energy'.] "guaseda" = 'liquid' -> "guaseveda" = 'fluidity', 'liquidness' "zesi" = 'to use' -> "zeveda" = 'control' "veyasesi" = 'to be -> "veyaseveda" = 'reality/existence' real/existent "jazmino" = 'uniform', -> "jazmiveda" = 'uniformity', 'homogeneous' 'homogeneity' "senjesi" = 'to be a -> "senjeveda" = 'membership', member of' 'affiliation', 'constituency' [English sometimes uses the words "membership", "affiliation", and "constituency" as synonyms for "members", as in "The membership will vote tomorrow". In the sample language, we can use simply "senjeda" for this purpose.] English examples: happiness, oldness, civility or politeness, reading ability/skill, friendliness, humanity (= humanness), tallness, redness, etc. Note that both nouns and adjectives can be formed from the active and passive voice derivations. For example, if the P/F-s verb meaning 'to love' is "xendasi = xendamasi", then we can derive the following: "xendano" = 'loving' "xendaveda" = 'love' "xendanuno" = 'lovable' "xendanuveda" = 'lovableness' Applying the same logic, verb forms will mean 'having the quality'. Thus, from "teyokosi" meaning 'to teach', we can derive "teyokovesi" meaning 'to have the ability to teach' or 'to know how to teach'. In effect, we are divorcing the act from the ability. Thus, the verb "teyokovesi" means that someone has the ability to teach, but not necessarily that this ability is actually put to use. Also, the generic AP/F-s action verb "zefivesi" indicates that the subject has the ability to do or perform the deed elaborated by the focus. Thus, the verb "zefivesi" is equivalent to the English verb "can" or "to be able", as in "John can swim" or "She was able to convince her husband". Note though, that this verb is not likely to be used very much in the sample language, since it is much more efficient to add "-ve-" directly to a verb. For example, it is more efficient to say "John teyokovesi" rather than "John zefivesi teyokofusi", even though both mean 'John knows how to teach' (where "-fu-" = the infinitive CCM discussed earlier). The adjective form "zefiveno" means 'able/capable', and the noun form "zefiveda" means 'an able/capable individual'. The essential quality of one who is 'able/capable' is 'ability/capability'. Thus, the word meaning 'ability/capability' is "zefiveveda". The passive adjective "zefinuveno" means 'doable'. Finally, when used as a root, "-ve-" will have the default class P/F-s with the meaning 'P has the qualities/nature/characteristics of F' or 'P is essentially/inherently F'. Thus, the sentence "John vesi a good teacher" means 'John has the qualities of a good teacher' or 'John is inherently a good teacher'. The inverse "vevisi" means 'to be the nature of', 'to be inherent to' or 'to be an essential/inherent quality of'. Thus the adjective "vevino" would be equivalent to English "inherent/essential/characteristic" and the "0" adverb "vevilape" would be equivalent to English "inherently/essentially/characteristically". The noun form, "vevida", is equivalent to the English words "nature", "quality", "essence", or "character". When referring to an active entity, "vevida" would thus include the sense 'ability'. However, "vevida" is obviously vaguer and more general than "zefiveveda" derived earlier. -pa- Process CCM For verbs, the actual process that takes place; i.e. a word which describes what is happening to a generic subject of the verb. Many English equivalents will end in "-ion", "-ing", or "-nce", but there are many exceptions. To determine the closest English equivalent, ask the question: "What process is the subject taking part in, or what is happening to the subject in a generic event or situation described by the verb?" Examples: "teyokosi" = 'to teach' -> "teyokopada" = 'pedagogy/ teaching/tutelage' "teyodosi" = 'to learn' -> "teyodopada" = 'learning/ education' "tencipiasi" = 'to become -> "tencipiapada" = 'intellectual more intelligent' growth' "guapusi" = 'to liquify' -> "guapupada" = 'liquification' = 'the process by which an agent causes something to become liquid' "guapiasi" = 'to liquify' -> "guapiapada" = 'liquification' 'to become liquid' = 'the process experienced by a patient that becomes liquid' "jazmino" = 'uniform', -> "jazmipada" = 'blending', 'homogeneous' 'homogenization' "menafisi" = 'to avoid' -> "menafipada" = 'avoidance' English examples: destruction, immigration, dying, movement, giving, inclusion, closure, calculation, aging, etc. Note that these derivations are all inherently 'mass' nouns. Thus, once we have derived a word for the process, we can create instances or individual acts of the situation using the 'count' classifier. In other words, when a count or group CCM is applied to a verbal stem (as opposed to a basic noun stem), it will indicate a proto- typical event or group of such events. Here are some English examples: "class, lesson or teaching session" from "teaching" "act of destruction" from "destruction" "study session" from "studying" "song" from "singing" "action" from "doing" "donation" from "giving" "a/the death" from "dying" "a dance" from "dancing" "a snore" from "snoring" "a quarrel" from "quarreling" "a play session" from "playing" And so forth. Using the group CCM, we can derive useful words such as "course" from "teaching", "songfest" from "singing", etc. When used as a root, "-pa-" will have the default class A/P-d, and the meaning of the root will be 'Agent causes patient to undergo the process associated with F'. Thus, the verb "pasi" means simply 'to process' or (colloquially) 'to handle or deal with', as in "John processed the apples before he processed the pears". The A/P-s form "pazoyasi" would be equivalent to English 'to work on'. The F-s [-P] form "pamadeda" means 'process' or 'operation'. The F-d [+A] [+P] open noun "pakojaugiu" means 'the processing of P by A'. And so on. -mante- Process Result or Product CCM Dynamic verbs indicate that a change of state occurs, and it is often useful to have a word that describes the end result or product of the process. Static verbs can also have identifiable products. In the sample language, we will use "-mante-" to indicate these products. (For "-p" verbs, it will indicate that the result is only potential or attempted.) Here are a few examples: "benzosi" = 'to close' -> "benzomanteda" = 'closure' "teyodosi" = 'to learn' -> "teyodomanteda" = 'erudition' (i.e. the RESULT of learning - NOT the process itself.) "jazmino" = 'uniform', -> "jazmimanteda" = 'blend', 'homogeneous' 'uniform mass' Here are some English examples: to damage -> (the) damage to break -> breakage to block -> blockage to devastate -> devastation to stink -> stench to die -> (the) death to stop -> stoppage Be careful not to confuse the process with the result. English sometimes uses the same word for both concepts (e.g. "destruction", "education", "distribution", "closure", "death", etc.). You can test the semantics by creating a phrase such as "the resulting X". If it makes sense, then it indicates the result rather than the process. When used as a root, "-mante-" will have the meaning 'patient is the result or product of a process associated with the focus', and the default class will be P/F-d. When the focus is a basic noun (as opposed to a verbal derivation), the root will indicate that the patient is a derivative/derivation of the focus. Thus, the word "mantesi" means 'to result from', 'to be due to', 'to come from', 'to be a derivative of', etc. The noun "manteda" means 'result, product, effect, aftermath, outcome, derivative/derivation, or consequence'. The adjective "manteno" means 'resulting', 'ensuing', 'resultant', 'consequent', etc. -xa- Genitive CCM This CCM will convert any noun into its genitive or possessive counterpart. Thus, it will correspond to the apostrophe-s in English possessive constructions, the preposition "of" in English or "de" in French, the particle "no" in Japanese, the suffix "-de" in Chinese", and the simple juxtaposition of two nouns in languages such as Indonesian and Cambodian. Here are a few examples: "teyokoda" = "teacher" "teyokoxano" = "teacher's" e.g. This is the teyokoxano pencil. This is the teacher's pencil. "teyokoxada" = "teacher's (item/thing)" e.g. This is the teyokoxada. This is the teacher's. "teyokoxasi" = "to be the teacher's" e.g. The pencil teyokoxasi. The pencil is the teacher's. [Note that "-xa-" changes the verb class to P-s.] "guasuda" = "duck" "guasuxano" = "duck's" e.g. The duck's food is over there. The "-xa-" CCM has the same weak sense of association as the generic P/F-s open adjective "mabie", and may be used in its place. In effect, the CCM "-xa-" is a shortcut for the open noun construction. Thus, "teyokoxano pencil" is synonymous with "pencil mabie teyokoda". When used as a root, "-xa-" will represent the basic genitive relationship of 'having' or 'possession', and will be P/F-s by default. Thus, the verb "xasi" means simply 'to have'. As we will see later, this is not the only way to derive this meaning, but use of "-xa-" in root position will provide other advantages. -tu- Reflexive CCM In a reflexive construction, an argument is marked as being identical to the subject of the verb. Most reflexive constructions in English use the morpheme "self" to mark this function. In the lexical semantic system we are discussing here, this function is often performed by deriving a verb whose subject is AP. For example, the verb "to kill" is an A/P-d verb, while the AP-d version means 'to kill oneself or commit suicide'. There are situations, however, when we must reflexivize a focus, creating subjects that are either PF, APF, or AF. The reflexive CCM "-tu-" will allow us to do this. Here are some examples: P/F-s "menasi" = 'to be away from' A/P/F-s "menatuesi" = 'to keep (something) away from (somewhere) AF/P-s "menatuetusi" = 'to keep (something) away', 'to hold at bay' AF/P-d "menakotusi" = 'to send away', 'to cause to leave' Here are a few English examples: AF-p [+P] 'to apologize' (earlier, we discussed the derivation of this verb in detail, in the section on derivations using action concepts.) AF-d [+P] 'self-explanatory', 'obvious' AP/F-s 'to accompany' P/F-s 'to be with' AF/P-s 'to bring/take along' APF-s 'self-admirer' and 'self-admiration' 'self-contempt' Note that, in all cases, X/Y becomes XY and X/Y/Z becomes XZ/Y (NOT XY/Z!). There is never a need to go from X/Y/Z to XY/Z since this capability is already available as a basic verb derivation. We can use the generic noun "tuda" to represent English words such as "myself", "themselves", etc. when we wish to create a stand-alone reflexive. (This is actually closer to the Japanese "jibun", since it does not indicate person or number.) Here are a few examples: