Editing Chat about sensing verbs


User
In a neutral, easy-for-the-world-to-learn conlang, it would be good with a better approach to the sensing verbs. In English, we have hear/listen, see/look,  but there's no pair for the other senses. In Danish, we have "få øje på", but no *"få øre/næse på". Using your knowledge of languages as different as Mandarin, Japanese, Hindi, Turkish, Russian, Spanish and others, have you got any useful insights?
ChatGPT
The design of sensing verbs in languages varies widely and can offer some interesting possibilities for a constructed language (conlang) aiming for neutrality and ease of learning. The distinctions found in English and Danish between passive and active forms of sensing—like "hear" vs. "listen" or "see" vs. "look"—aren't universally found, but they do provide an interesting model for enhancing expressiveness.

Here's a quick run-through of how some other languages handle this:

Spanish: Spanish does have "oir" (to hear) and "escuchar" (to listen), but it doesn't make such distinctions for other senses. However, it uses reflexive verbs to denote voluntary actions like "verse" (to see oneself) as opposed to "ver" (to see).

Mandarin: Mandarin Chinese uses different verbs for active/passive sensing but primarily in the context of seeing and listening. For example, "看" (kàn) is more like "to look," and "听" (tīng) is more like "to listen," as opposed to simply hearing or seeing.

Japanese: Similar to Mandarin, there's "見る" (miru, to see) and "聞く" (kiku, to hear) for passive sensing. There are more specific verbs to describe an active action, such as "探る" (saguru, to feel around).

Russian: Like English, Russian distinguishes between hearing ("слышать" [slyshat']) and listening ("слушать" [slushat']). However, it doesn't maintain this distinction for other senses.

Hindi: Hindi differentiates between seeing ("देखना" [dekhna]) and looking ("झांकना" [jhānknā]) and between hearing ("सुनना" [sunnā]) and listening ("कान लगाना" [kān lagānā]).

Turkish: Similar to Mandarin, different words can describe the action of actively looking ("bakmak") and just seeing ("görmek") and hearing ("işitmek") and listening ("dinlemek").

Esperanto: While not a natural language, Esperanto uses roots to create active and passive forms, e.g., "aŭdi" (to hear) and "aŭskulti" (to listen). It's relatively simple to create new verb forms to describe other types of sensing.

So, if designing a conlang:

Active/Passive Pairs: Consider implementing a system where each sense has an active and a passive verb, similar to English "see/look" or "hear/listen." This would be a universally understood concept that adds expressiveness without excessive complexity.

Modifying Affixes: You could take a root verb for each sense and use affixes to indicate whether it's a passive or active action, akin to Esperanto.

Contextual Variants: Alternatively, rely on context or adverbs to clarify the meaning, similar to languages that don't differentiate between "see" and "look."

Compound Verbs: Utilise compound verbs to specify the type of sensing, like "få øje på" in Danish.

Reflexive Actions: Use reflexive verbs or particles to indicate a deliberate action of sensing, as in Spanish.

The choice of approach could also reflect the overall design goals of your conlang—whether you're striving for simplicity, expressiveness, or some other quality.

User
Do you know of any language that uses an affix for the active meaning (look/listen), added to the passive one (see/hear)?
ChatGPT
Indeed, there are languages that utilise affixes to convey a more active sense of a verb, although this isn't necessarily limited to sensory verbs.

Esperanto: In Esperanto, you can start with a passive root like "aŭdi" (to hear) and add a suffix to make it active as in "aŭskulti" (to listen). The "-skult-" infix serves to make the action more attentive or active.

Tagalog: In Philippine languages like Tagalog, you have root words to which you can add affixes to convey various nuances. For example, the root "tingin" means 'look' or 'glance,' and "pagmamasdan" would mean 'to scrutinize' or 'observe closely,' giving it an active sense.

Latin: While not precisely the same, Latin uses prefixes like "ob-" to add an active sense to some verbs. For example, "audire" means to hear, while "obaudire" means to listen to, pay attention to.

Finnish: Finnish uses cases to modify the root verb. The verb "kuulla" means 'to hear,' and by changing the case, you can derive different meanings. However, the language typically does not use affixes specifically to turn a passive verb active in the way English uses "see" and "look" as separate lexemes.

Russian: Affixes in Russian can add an iterative or intensive meaning to the verb, although this is more general and not specifically for sensory verbs. For example, "глядеть" (glyadet') is an iterative form of "смотреть" (smotret'), both roughly meaning 'to look,' but the former implies a repeated or more intense action.

While not a perfect one-to-one comparison to the "see/look" or "hear/listen" distinction in English, these examples do demonstrate how languages can employ affixes to modify the core meaning of a verb in ways that could be adapted to create active/passive pairs for sensory verbs in a conlang.

User
How would you define look/listen?
ChatGPT
In English, "look" and "listen" are sensory verbs that imply intentionality or focus, as opposed to the more passive "see" and "hear."

Look: To "look" suggests an active effort to see something. When you look, you direct your eyes towards something intentionally, often because you expect to see something or are attempting to find something. It's not just a matter of light waves hitting your retinas; it's a conscious effort to interpret or find something in the visual scene before you.

Listen: To "listen" means to make a conscious effort to hear. Unlike the passive act of hearing, which can happen without your awareness, listening requires focus and attention. You listen to gather information, appreciate music, or participate in a conversation. Like looking, listening is a deliberate act, implying engagement with the sounds you are taking in.

Both verbs involve an element of concentration and intention. You have a reason for looking or listening; you are seeking specific information, enjoyment, or engagement with your environment. In summary, the essence of "look" and "listen" lies in the conscious effort and focus directed towards the sensory experience.

User
I'm using many compounds in my conlang, including for verbs (which could then perhaps be described better as serial verbs). So I could use something like "hear-investigate" or "focus-hear" for "listen". What do you think?
ChatGPT
Using compounds or serial verbs is an excellent way to add nuance to the verbs in your conlang. This approach is prevalent in many natural languages and can help to reduce the need for an expansive vocabulary while also providing a high degree of specificity.

Hear-Investigate: This compound does a good job of conveying the active, intentional nature of "listening." The term "investigate" carries a connotation of scrutiny and focused attention, and when combined with "hear," the resulting term effectively captures the essence of "listening."

Focus-Hear: This is another good option, as "focus" explicitly points to the intentional aspect of the action. One might argue that "focus" is slightly more general than "investigate," which might make this compound more versatile. It could be used not just for active listening but perhaps also for focused sensory perception in general.

Both options could work well, depending on the nuance you wish to convey. "Hear-Investigate" might be better suited for scenarios requiring deep, critical listening (e.g., a detective eavesdropping to gather evidence), while "Focus-Hear" might be more general and applicable to any situation requiring heightened auditory attention (e.g., enjoying music, following a conversation).

If your conlang uses many compound or serial verbs, this approach would be entirely consistent with its overall structure and could serve as a robust model for treating other sensory verbs in the same way (e.g., "see-explore," "touch-examine," etc.).

User
Yes, so I need a verb that means something like investigate/explore/examine/focus-on, and it can then be combined with all sensory verbs.
ChatGPT
Ah, that's a clever approach. A universal modifier verb like "investigate," "explore," "examine," or "focus-on" could serve as a versatile tool in your conlang's toolbox, enabling speakers to specify the intensity or intentionality of various sensory actions. Here's a breakdown of the potential candidates:

Investigate: Implies a thorough, detailed search or inquiry. Could be ideal for situations that require depth and scrutiny. May also convey a sense of purpose or an end goal.

Explore: Suggests an open-ended, curious interaction with the environment. Might be less goal-oriented than "investigate," which could be advantageous or limiting based on what you want to convey.

Examine: Connotes close observation or scrutiny, often for evaluation or diagnosis. It's quite a focused term, akin to "investigate," but perhaps a bit more clinical.

Focus-On: This is the broadest of the terms and simply indicates heightened attention. It can be applied across various contexts and sensory modalities without suggesting a particular purpose or outcome.

Choosing among these depends on the degree of specificity or generality you desire for your conlang. If you want a term that can cover a lot of ground without implying too much about the listener's or observer's intentions, "Focus-On" would be a solid choice. On the other hand, if you prefer to offer speakers the ability to express a more targeted, goal-oriented sensory experience, "Investigate" or "Examine" might be more fitting.

Given that you like to employ serial verbs, you could even use more than one of these modifiers to allow for gradations of focus and intentionality (e.g., "hear-focus" for casual listening, "hear-investigate" for more critical or purposeful listening). This could provide your conlang with a rich, expressive vocabulary for describing sensory experiences.

User
True, it's a good point. It would be much more precise in this regard than English, for instance.
ChatGPT
Exactly, the flexibility and granularity that such a system offers could make your conlang exceptionally expressive when it comes to describing sensory experiences. It allows for a more nuanced depiction of how one is engaging with their environment, something that even many natural languages don't readily accommodate. Whether it's a quick glance or an intense scrutiny, a casual listen or a deep auditory investigation, the choice of modifier can carry significant semantic weight. This could make for engaging and precise communication, lending itself well to both poetry and technical discourse.

User
Something similar could be done with verbs for giving/taking, buying/selling, lending/borrowing, etc., similar to how Esperanto uses prunte-.
ChatGPT
Absolutely, the same principle can indeed be extended to verbs describing transactions or reciprocal actions. Just like with sensory verbs, a modifier can help clarify the directionality or intentionality of the action. This kind of system could make your conlang both flexible and precise.

In Esperanto, the prefix "prunte-" can be added to various verbs to indicate a temporary state or action, often related to borrowing. So, you have "pruntepreni" for "to borrow" (literally "borrow-take") and "pruntedoni" for "to lend" (literally "borrow-give"). It’s a good example of how a single root or affix can be used flexibly to create new compound verbs that immediately make sense.

You could employ a similar strategy:

Give-Trade / Take-Trade: To distinguish between giving and receiving in a commercial context (buying/selling).

Give-Temp / Take-Temp: For lending and borrowing, respectively, where "Temp" stands for a temporary transfer.

Give-Force / Take-Force: To indicate whether something was given or taken unwillingly, as in coercion or theft.

The ability to build such compounds can result in a language that is both economical (fewer root words to learn) and expressive (many ways to combine roots for nuanced meaning). This compositional approach could be a defining feature of your conlang, making it interesting to learn and rich in expressive potential.

User
Perhaps "money-take" and "money-give" for buying and selling?
ChatGPT
That's a straightforward and effective way to convey the concepts of buying and selling. "Money-Take" clearly signifies the act of acquiring something in exchange for money, making it an intuitive stand-in for "buying." Likewise, "Money-Give" denotes the act of providing something and receiving money in return, which naturally corresponds to "selling."

The advantage of such compound verbs is their immediate comprehensibility. Even someone with a basic understanding of the language's structure and vocabulary would likely grasp what "Money-Take" and "Money-Give" mean. This could be particularly beneficial in a constructed language meant for easy learning and international use.

Moreover, these compounds fit well within a language system that relies on modifiers to enrich or specify the meaning of base verbs, like the sensory verbs you're also considering. They would form part of a consistent, logical structure that lends itself to quick mastery and flexible expression.

User
Indeed, your "force-give" would be hard to translate into English (differently from "force-take", which obviously is "steal/rob").
ChatGPT
You're absolutely right. While "Force-Take" easily translates to "steal" or "rob," English lacks a single, succinct verb that encapsulates the concept of giving something under duress or coercion. In English, we'd typically have to resort to a phrase like "to give under coercion" or "to be forced to give," which aren't as economical as a compound like "Force-Give."

This just underscores the potential richness and precision your proposed system could offer. With compounds like "Force-Give," your conlang could capture nuances that might require clauses or sentences to express in other languages. This opens up fascinating possibilities for concise and expressive communication.

So, adopting this kind of compound-verb system could indeed make your conlang unique in its ability to convey complex ideas simply and efficiently.

User
Actually, "steal/pickpocket" would probably be "secret-take", don't you think?
ChatGPT
That's an excellent point. "Secret-Take" would intuitively communicate the clandestine nature of the action, making it a fitting term for acts like stealing or pickpocketing. The modifier "secret-" immediately adds a layer of context that specifies the manner in which the action is performed, without requiring an entirely new root word for each concept.

This approach has the added advantage of making your conlang more accessible to learners. They can more readily understand complex actions by breaking them down into their component parts. So, while they might learn "take" and "secret" as separate terms, combining them to comprehend "secret-take" becomes a logical step.

Using such compounds can imbue your conlang with both simplicity and nuance, enabling speakers to be highly specific in their descriptions while maintaining a relatively compact vocabulary.

User
There's also coming and going. I'm inspired by the Georgian prefixes მი- & მო-.
ChatGPT
The Georgian directional prefixes "მი-" (mi-) and "მო-" (mo-) offer a nuanced way to indicate movement toward or away from a reference point. "მი-" is generally used to indicate motion towards something, while "მო-" indicates motion coming from somewhere. It's a beautifully efficient system.

Adapting this concept into your conlang could create a highly expressive, yet streamlined, way to talk about various kinds of movements or transfers. Here are some potential examples:

Mi-Come / Mo-Go: Indicating coming towards and going away from a location or person, akin to the Georgian usage.

Mi-Take / Mo-Give: Describing the action of taking something toward oneself or giving it away to another location or person.

Mi-Read / Mo-Write: To read towards oneself (perhaps gathering information) or to write outwardly (perhaps disseminating information).

This kind of prefix system can be very potent in a language, allowing for the development of complex ideas from a relatively small set of root words and affixes. Moreover, once the general concept of these directional prefixes is understood, it can be applied widely, making the language easier to learn and use effectively.

By incorporating elements like this, you'd be adding another layer of logical consistency and expressive depth to your conlang.

User
Btw, can you remember how English "come" is different from Danish "komme"?
ChatGPT
Certainly, both English "come" and Danish "komme" refer to the basic idea of moving towards a location or point in time, but there are differences in usage and connotations between the two:

Modal Usage: In Danish, "komme" is sometimes used as an auxiliary verb to form the future tense, e.g., "jeg kommer til at gøre det" ("I will do it"). English doesn't use "come" in this way.

Idiomatic Usage: Both languages have idiomatic phrases involving "come" or "komme," but these don't always overlap. For instance, "komme til sig selv" in Danish means to regain consciousness or composure, which isn't directly translated using "come" in English.

Prepositional Differences: While both languages use prepositions with "come/komme," the choice of preposition can vary. For example, in English, you'd say "come to the party," while in Danish it would be "komme til festen."

Compound Verbs: Danish often forms compound verbs using "komme" that don't have direct equivalents in English. For example, "komme over" in Danish can mean to recover from something, which would require a different verb or a more complex phrase in English.

Reflexive Usage: Danish uses "komme" in reflexive constructions more often than English, e.g., "Jeg kom mig hurtigt" ("I quickly recovered"). In English, "come" is not commonly used reflexively.

Impersonal Constructions: In Danish, "komme" is often used in impersonal constructions like "det kommer an på" ("it depends on"), where the equivalent English phrase would not use "come."

So while "come" and "komme" are cognates and share the basic sense of moving towards something, the way they are employed in their respective languages gives them unique flavors.

User
No, I meant, is there not a difference between whether the movement-towards is concerned with the speaker or the listener?
ChatGPT
Ah, I see what you mean. Yes, there is a nuanced difference between how "come" and "komme" relate to the speaker and listener in terms of directionality.

In English, "come" is generally used to describe movement toward the speaker or toward a location that the speaker is focusing on. For example, "Come here" implies moving toward the speaker's location.

In Danish, "komme" can be used more flexibly to indicate movement toward either the speaker or the listener. The directionality is often clarified by the context or additional phrases. For example, "Kom her" and "Kom der" could both translate to "come here" in English, but "Kom der" would imply movement toward a place near the listener rather than the speaker.

So, yes, there is a subtle difference between "come" and "komme" when it comes to specifying the direction of movement in relation to the speaker or listener.

User
I'm thinking about sentences like "Kommer du til festen?"
ChatGPT
Ah, got it. In the Danish example "Kommer du til festen?" ("Are you coming to the party?"), the verb "komme" is oriented towards the location of the event, which may or may not be where the speaker is. The focus is more on the event itself rather than the speaker's location.

In English, if you ask, "Are you coming to the party?", the implication often is that the speaker will also be at the party. In other words, "coming" usually implies moving towards the speaker's location or a location of mutual interest.

So, yes, in this context, "komme" in Danish may have a slightly broader or more flexible implication concerning the directionality of movement, focusing sometimes more on the destination rather than the speaker.

User
So it would more often than not be "Are you going to the party?" in English.
ChatGPT
Exactly, you've hit the nail on the head. In English, "Are you going to the party?" is often used when the speaker is not necessarily going to be at the party themselves, or when the focus is on the event rather than the speaker's presence there. "Are you coming to the party?" usually implies that the speaker will also be at the event, and you'd be joining them.

The Danish "Kommer du til festen?" doesn't carry this same implication as strongly. It can be used whether or not the speaker is planning to attend the party, making it a bit more versatile in that sense.

User
Is English or Danish the odd man out here?
ChatGPT
In the grand scheme of languages, it's hard to definitively say which one is the "odd man out," as different languages have various ways of expressing directionality and focus in regard to events. However, I can offer some perspective.

English: In English, the distinction between "coming" and "going" often carries an implication about the speaker's own involvement or location in relation to the event or place being discussed. This might be seen as a bit more nuanced or specific compared to some other languages.

Danish: The use of "komme" in Danish can be more flexible, focusing more on the event or destination rather than necessarily implying the speaker's involvement or location. This may align more closely with how some other languages approach the concept.

Other Languages: In some languages, like Spanish or French, the verb used can similarly depend on the speaker's relationship to the event or location. For example, in Spanish, "venir" (to come) and "ir" (to go) can imply specific perspectives relative to the speaker or listener.

So, whether English or Danish is the "odd man out" can depend on what set of languages you're comparing them to. English seems to be more prescriptive in this particular case, while Danish offers a bit more flexibility, which itself is not uncommon in other languages.

User
Check some of the languages you know (Mandarin, Japanese, Hindi, Swahili, Turkish, Russian, ...) – would the say "Are you going to the party" or "Are you coming to the party" or both?
ChatGPT
Great question! Let's delve into how some of these languages would approach this situation:

Mandarin Chinese: Typically, you might say "你去派对吗?" ("Nǐ qù pàiduì ma?"), which directly translates to "Are you going to the party?" There's less emphasis on the speaker's own attendance.

Japanese: The phrase "パーティーに行くの?" ("Pātī ni iku no?") is common and translates to "Are you going to the party?" Again, less focus is on the speaker's own presence at the party.

Hindi: You could say "तुम पार्टी में जा रहे हो?" ("Tum paartī meṅ jā rahe ho?"), which translates to "Are you going to the party?" Like Mandarin and Japanese, this doesn't imply the speaker will also attend.

Swahili: "Je, unakwenda kwenye sherehe?" translates to "Are you going to the party?" The focus here is also more on the listener's action.

Turkish: "Partiye gidiyor musun?" means "Are you going to the party?" Again, this focuses more on whether the listener is attending, not the speaker.

Russian: "Ты идёшь на вечеринку?" ("Ty idyosh na vecherinku?") translates to "Are you going to the party?" Like the others, this doesn't necessarily imply the speaker will be there.

In summary, in these languages, the common way to ask someone about their attendance at a party is usually more akin to the English "Are you going to the party?" rather than "Are you coming to the party?" So, in this specific context, English might be considered the "odd man out" for often making a distinction based on the speaker's own attendance.

User
Surely it's Danish that's the odd man out here, if it's the only language on the planet that uses "come" rather than "go" here.
ChatGPT
You're absolutely right, and I stand corrected. If the common trend among the languages surveyed is to use a verb equivalent to "go," then Danish would indeed be the outlier for commonly using a verb that translates to "come" in this context. It's an interesting quirk that sets Danish apart in how it handles directionality and focus relative to events. My apologies for the oversight.

User
Is Danish similar to Swedish, German, Dutch and perhaps French in this regard?
ChatGPT
Ah, let's explore how these languages handle the "come" versus "go" question when asking about attendance at an event.

Swedish: Similar to Danish, the phrase "Kommer du på festen?" could be used, which translates to "Are you coming to the party?"

German: The language can go both ways. "Kommst du zur Party?" means "Are you coming to the party?" but "Gehst du zur Party?" ("Are you going to the party?") is also common.

Dutch: It's more typical to say "Ga je naar het feest?" which translates to "Are you going to the party?"

French: You'd often hear "Tu vas à la fête?" meaning "Are you going to the party?" It is less common to hear "Tu viens à la fête?" unless the speaker is also attending or is already at the location.

So, among these languages, Swedish and German may align more closely with Danish in that they can use a term equivalent to "come" when discussing attendance at an event. Dutch and French, on the other hand, lean more towards the equivalent of "go."

Based on this set, it seems that the "come" approach is not unique to Danish but can be found in some other Germanic languages as well. So, in the context of these closely related languages, Danish wouldn't be the "odd man out," but part of a smaller subgroup.

User
Perhaps it's related to the fact that Danish doesn't have a word for "go" (general motion) – you have to use gå/løbe/køre/flyve/svømme/... – or indeed "tage" or "komme".
ChatGPT
That's an intriguing observation. The absence of a generic "go" verb in Danish could indeed influence how directionality and movement are expressed in the language. The reliance on more specific verbs like "gå" (walk), "løbe" (run), "køre" (drive), "flyve" (fly), "svømme" (swim), etc., might push the language to use "komme" (come) in contexts where English or other languages would use "go."

In languages that have a generic verb for "go," that verb often carries less implication about the speaker's or listener's involvement in the action. On the other hand, using "komme" in Danish might naturally imply a destination or event as a focal point, making it a suitable choice for asking about attendance, regardless of the speaker's involvement.

So yes, the specific lexical gaps in a language can influence how certain ideas are most naturally expressed. Your observation about Danish lacking a general "go" verb could very well be a factor in this particular usage.

User
Let's face it – the only other way to ask that question in Danish is probably "Tager du (med) til festen?"
ChatGPT
You're spot on. "Tager du (med) til festen?" would be another way to ask about someone's attendance at a party in Danish. The verb "tage" (to take) in this context often implies a certain level of involvement or action on the part of the person, similar to "going" in English. The optional "med" (along) can emphasize the collective aspect, potentially hinting that others, possibly including the speaker, will also be attending.

So even without a generic "go," Danish has ways to frame the question that carry slightly different nuances, much like English's "going" vs. "coming." Fascinating how languages fill in these gaps, isn't it?

User
I remember somebody once asked me how to translate English "go" into Danish. I replied "tage", and they looked like I was weird.
ChatGPT
Ah, the perils of cross-linguistic translation! While "tage" does convey the notion of going somewhere, it's not a one-to-one translation of the English "go." In English, "go" is a general verb used for all kinds of motion, but "tage" in Danish implies the act of taking or bringing oneself somewhere, often with a sense of purpose. It doesn't encompass all the various types of movement that "go" does in English. So, while your answer captured a part of the concept, it understandably raised some eyebrows.

This sort of thing happens often when we attempt to map one language's lexicon onto another's. Each word carries its own set of nuances, making direct translation a tricky affair. It's often these little subtleties that make learning a new language both a challenge and a delight, don't you think?

User
Very true.
ChatGPT
I'm glad you agree. The intricacies of language never cease to amaze, and it's always enlightening to delve into these nuances. Whether it's the lack of a generic "go" in Danish or the specific sensory verbs in a constructed language, these details make each linguistic system unique and fascinating.