Concevoir un langage artificiel: Opposites
Auteur: Rick Morneau
Date MS: 07-19-1994
Date FL: 12-01-2019
Numéro FL: FL-000063-00
Citation: Morneau, Rick. 1994. “Designing an Artificial
Langue: Opposites.” FL-000063-00, Fiat
Lingua,
December 2019.
droits d'auteur: © 1994 Rick Morneau. Ce travail est sous licence
sous une attribution Creative Commons-
Non Commercial-Pas de Dérivés 3.0 Licence non transférée.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/
Fiat Lingua est produit et maintenu par la Language Creation Society (LCS). Pour plus d'informations
à propos du LCS, visitez http://www.conlang.org/
Designing an Artificial Language:
Opposites
by Rick Morneau
Juillet, 1992
Revised July 19, 1994
Copyright © 1992, 1994 by Richard A. Morneau,
all rights reserved.
[The following is an edited version of my contribution to a
discussion on the Conlang email list. The discussion was
about opposites and about how to deal with them in
constructed languages. The Conlang mailing list is
dedicated to the discussion of the construction of
artificial languages. To subscribe, send an email message
with the single line:
SUBSCRIBE CONLANG your name
to [email protected] .
Questions about the implementation of opposites in artificial languages (henceforth ALs) sont
really questions about the interaction between morphology and lexical semantics – two of my
favorite subjects.
Linguists have written quite a lot on the subject of opposites. For a highly readable reference, je
recommend Lexical Semantics by D.A. Cruse, la presse de l'Universite de Cambridge, 1986. The book
contains three chapters just on opposites. Here’s a partial breakdown of the kinds of opposites
you can run into:
Complementaries: mutually exclusive – no gray area, tel que
true/false, dead/alive, hit/miss
Antonyms: gradable, such as long/short, good/bad, hot/cold.
This group has several sub-groups.
Directional opposites: north/south, up/down, forwards/
backwards
1
Antipodals: cellar/attic, head/toe, full/empty
Counterparts: homme Femme, ridge/groove, heaven/hell
Reversives: rise/fall, enter/leave, tie/untie
Converses: before/after, above/below, in front of/behind
Relational: doctor/patient, predator/prey, parent/child
and much more.
Fortunately or unfortunately, I’ve never heard of a natural language that marks its words
consistently and equally for polarity. When it occurs at all, there is always an imbalance, comme avec
the English “un-” (Par exemple, le mot “marked” is unmarked, tandis que le mot “unmarked” est
marked.)
Toutefois, both natural and artificial languages mark their words for many other things, and I see
no reason why we can’t extend this idea to cover polarity. Par exemple, in many Malayo-
Polynesian languages (Indonesian, Tagalog, Fijian, et al.) verbs are derived from primitives to
mark their transitivity and whether they are active or passive. Ou, consider Iroquoian langauges,
such as Mohawk and Cherokee, which mark their verbs for the semantic roles agent and patient
played by the arguments. As for nouns, consider the Bantu langauges which mark for class
(which is often semantically relevant).
What if we extended these morphological derivations to indicate their polarity by doubling the
number of marker morphemes? Autrement dit, where you may now have one morpheme to mark
a specific feature, instead have two: one for positive and one for negative. Par exemple, Disons
your AL marks its verbs for transitivity, like this:
le- = positive, transitif (X does something to Y)
bu- = negative, transitif
De- = positive, intransitif (something happens to X)
sur- = negative, intransitif
If the root meaning free, non-captive is booga, then we could create the following words:
kebooga = to free, to release
bubooga = to capture
dibooga = to escape
sabooga = to surrender
2
This approach is okay for a crude first pass, but it is unsatisfying as a real solution because
transitivity is a syntactic phenomenon. I feel that a semanticsolution based on thematic relations
would be much more flexible, and I have LOTS to say on this in my (very long!)
monograph Lexical Semantics. Aussi, this solution is too simplistic, because it fails to deal
adequately with gradeable concepts, like hot, chaud, lukewarm, ambient, cool, froid, frigid. Pour
these, you could start with derived primitives to handle basic (+), (0) et (-) notions, and then
add fine-tuning morphemes to cover the cases in between. Par exemple:
positive (+) primitives: CVNC
where N is a nasal, homorganic with the C that follows
il.
neutre (0) primitives: CVLC
where L is a liquid, such as /l/ or /r/
négatif (-) primitives: CVSC
where S is either /s/ or /z/, agreeing in voicing with
the C that follows it.
Suivant, add the fine-tuning morphemes:
à- = to move in a positive direction
Non- = to move in a negative direction
Ainsi, to put it all together, let pend = ‘hot’, peld = ‘ambient’, and pezd = ‘cold’. With the fine-tuning
morphemes, you can now get:
kipend = scalding, red-hot
pend = hot
nopend = warm, not too hot
kipeld = lukewarm, tepid
peld = ambient, room-temperature
nopeld = slightly cool
kipezd = cool
pezd = cold
nopezd = frigid
You can, bien sûr, add more fine-tuning morphemes to handle finer distinctions or more
extreme ones, such as ‘super hot’ and ‘super cold’.
The only problem I have with all of this is that it is definitely unnatural, and I would normally be
reluctant to include a feature in an AL that could potentially go against some linguistic universal.
3
Toutefois, I doubt if this is a serious problem, since linguistic purists could always regard the
combination of a primitive + polarity marker as a single morpheme.
I will say no more about this because I’ve written a lengthy monograph Lexical Semantics that
goes into considerably more detail on the whole topic of lexical semantics for ALs, and I prefer
to say it all there rather than here. Besides, the approach I discuss in the monograph is
considerably different than the one discussed here, et, à mon avis, considerably better as
Bien. 🙂
End of Essay
4
