linguoboy wrote:rubs wrote:linguoboy wrote:rubs wrote:also reading up what specifically you meant that's interesting but, doesn't make the semantics or syntax irregular.
Then I don't understand what you mean by "irregular". In what sense is went a "regular" past tense of go when the vast majority of English verbs form the past tense simply by adding -ed? Suppletion is an inherently "irregular" process--not all stems undergo it and there are no rules which predict what forms the suppletive stems will take.
well if plural, marking is also encoded in another part of the overarching clause that doesn't seem like it'd necisarily be a different type of structure but rather just a conditionally triggered change, that is present when the totality of the clause contains an argument with non singular marking.
This isn't clarifying for me your definition of "irregular". If suppletion doesn't qualify, what does?
I think it depends on what scope one’s looking at.
not sure what i'm meant to argue.
rubs wrote:rereading what I said I don't see how this negatively affects what i've claimed
You claimed the Navajo language was "incredibly regular". Its regularity is quite credible to me.
Dear sir what distinction are you pointing to?
taking you literally of course it's credible, did anyone ever claim the navaho didn't exist?
rubs wrote:yup'ik, any example amerindian languages appear to be at the very least often enough deeply expressive languages, indeed sometimes their is no difficulty expressing concepts previously entirely alien to the culture without requiring any degree of Lexicalisation or anything like that.
All languages are capable of that. This isn't any special quality of languages of the Americas. (Yup'ik isn't "Amerindian".)
I never intended you to read that I thought it was particular to amerindians.
Other than finner nuances, I wanted to give somewhat varried examples.
rubs wrote:yeah well I tend to not think in those categories
You absolutely think in these categories all the time. "Language" is a category. So is "human" or "plural". Plurality itself is a category, as is tense and definiteness. This is how your thought is structured.
my grammar must be awful that's not either what i was getting at or what i understood,
you claimed that this was a linguistic universal I wouldn't be aware of.
But if you mean In the sense that categories exist at some level and that their must be some cognitive coding or translation, and that language plays some role in this, and I understood what you said about Lojban being an exception in some sense to this.
…… Overall i'm really confused, I know that Lojban has categories, thats the least confusing bit of the whole discussion.
I can genuinely say this is not unambiguos information and my immediate thoughts, aren't one of abject objectivity but rather of wanting to psychoanalyse the incredibly peculiar model.
Neither unambiguous nor does it glare me as in anyway informative about language.