<p>I am basically getting to the crux of my assumption in the conlang I am working on. That is, treating every word as a &quot;base&quot;, which can be realized into either a verb, noun, or adjective, or 2 or all 3 of them at once. But the more I play with this, the more I am starting to think that every concept has a &quot;base&quot; in one of these 3 word forms, not more than one. Is that correct? Or are there cases where a base concept can be both a verb and a noun at the foundational level, or an adjective and a verb or adjective and noun at the basic level?</p>
<p>For example, &quot;frail&quot; is an adjective at the base, there is no verb, and the noun is basically frailty &quot;frail state&quot;. The closest verb might be &quot;to be frail&quot;.</p>
<p>And then &quot;tree&quot; is a noun at the base, with &quot;treeify&quot; being a derived verb (to be tree-like, or grow like a tree), and it doesn't have an adjective form.</p>
<p>But &quot;calm&quot; is both a verb and a noun seemingly at the same time. I don't mean just because in English the verb and noun use the same word, I mean the &quot;calm state&quot; and the &quot;calm action&quot; seem like both base forms of the word. But maybe not, maybe the noun is the base, and the action is to &quot;create/make calm&quot;. So that would be evidence that there is indeed just 1 word per concept at the base.</p>
<p>Or &quot;gallop&quot;, is the action or the object the base, or both?</p>
<p>I can only really think of words where there could be 2 bases, but thinking further it seems like one base and the other derived.</p>
<p>This would mean that everything is <em>either</em> a noun, verb, or adjective at the base, and can be extended to other word forms. I guess you have to also include a particle as the base word form, or like prepositions, so that would give you 4 word forms at least. But I am mainly asking about words that are nouns, verbs, and/or adjectives. Can they be more than one simultaneously, or must it be just one word at the base?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-26T07:37:49.363Z
This question is really very debatable from the perspective of linguistics. Some lingusitics frameworks posit category-less roots, others would posit roots with strict inherent categories. Of course not all languages have adjectives, so there definitely isn't a universal three way division. But it does seem like all languages are based on both substantives and predicates, entities and events, or nominals and verbals.
curiousdannii
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-26T09:36:57.063Z
If it's debatable, can you summarize the debate? For [languages "without adjectives"](https://www.quora.com/How-do-languages-without-adjectives-describe-things-that-adjectives-describe-such-as-the-big-thing-or-the-small-thing), they still require the use of adjectives implicitly, so I would say adjectives are also fundamental. Like "big thing", the adjective is "big". It is a fundamental thing unless I am missing something.
Lance Pollard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-26T18:01:48.713Z
@Lance They're a fundamental category in English, but other languages don't necessarily have a separate category of "adjective". Some philosophers propose that everything can be reduced down to entities and predicates as the two fundamental classes of meaning (plus Boolean truth values), and indeed all languages seem to have "noun-like things" and "verb-like things", but beyond that it depends on the language.
Draconis
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-26T21:28:25.067Z
A lot is coming down to me not understanding how languages without adjectives work. [Wondering](https://www.quora.com/unanswered/What-is-good-reading-material-for-understanding-languages-that-dont-have-adjectives) what some good resources are to learn about languages that lack adjectives.
Lance Pollard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-29T03:02:31.240Z
My [latest thinking on it](https://www.reddit.com/r/linguistics/comments/ydty40/comment/iu7apwt/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).
Lance Pollard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-29T05:09:40.950Z
@Lance That sounds like you're more interested in philosophy than linguistics. I'd recommend reading up on formal semantics and semantic typing, which classifies everything in language as an entity, a boolean, or a function on those (for example a predicate is a function from an entity to a boolean). Terms like "adjectives" aren't about the true nature of reality or whatever, they're about how people use words to communicate.
Draconis
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-29T23:58:09.370Z
Yeah I'm starting to realize just how much I assumed action = verb, object = noun, type = adjective haha. Linguistics is more about the role words play in a sentence structure I guess. But it's important to know the possibilities in linguistics for making a conlang! I added more to [Tune](https://github.com/teamtreesurf/tune) describing what I went with.
Lance Pollard
<vocabulary>
Do all words derive from one word form, or can one word form have many similar meanings in different parts of speech?
# Do all words derive from one word form, or can one word form have many similar meanings in different parts of speech?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2022-10-26)

I am basically getting to the crux of my assumption in the conlang I am working on. That is, treating every word as a "base", which can be realized into either a verb, noun, or adjective, or 2 or all 3 of them at once. But the more I play with this, the more I am starting to think that every concept has a "base" in one of these 3 word forms, not more than one. Is that correct? Or are there cases where a base concept can be both a verb and a noun at the foundational level, or an adjective and a verb or adjective and noun at the basic level?

For example, "frail" is an adjective at the base, there is no verb, and the noun is basically frailty "frail state". The closest verb might be "to be frail".

And then "tree" is a noun at the base, with "treeify" being a derived verb (to be tree-like, or grow like a tree), and it doesn't have an adjective form.

But "calm" is both a verb and a noun seemingly at the same time. I don't mean just because in English the verb and noun use the same word, I mean the "calm state" and the "calm action" seem like both base forms of the word. But maybe not, maybe the noun is the base, and the action is to "create/make calm". So that would be evidence that there is indeed just 1 word per concept at the base.

Or "gallop", is the action or the object the base, or both?

I can only really think of words where there could be 2 bases, but thinking further it seems like one base and the other derived.

This would mean that everything is *either* a noun, verb, or adjective at the base, and can be extended to other word forms. I guess you have to also include a particle as the base word form, or like prepositions, so that would give you 4 word forms at least. But I am mainly asking about words that are nouns, verbs, and/or adjectives. Can they be more than one simultaneously, or must it be just one word at the base?

**Tags:** vocabulary
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: This question is really very debatable from the perspective of linguistics. Some lingusitics frameworks posit category-less roots, others would posit roots with strict inherent categories. Of course not all languages have adjectives, so there definitely isn't a universal three way division. But it does seem like all languages are based on both substantives and predicates, entities and events, or nominals and verbals.  
> **username_0**: If it's debatable, can you summarize the debate? For [languages "without adjectives"](https://www.quora.com/How-do-languages-without-adjectives-describe-things-that-adjectives-describe-such-as-the-big-thing-or-the-small-thing), they still require the use of adjectives implicitly, so I would say adjectives are also fundamental. Like "big thing", the adjective is "big". It is a fundamental thing unless I am missing something.  
> **username_2**: @Lance They're a fundamental category in English, but other languages don't necessarily have a separate category of "adjective". Some philosophers propose that everything can be reduced down to entities and predicates as the two fundamental classes of meaning (plus Boolean truth values), and indeed all languages seem to have "noun-like things" and "verb-like things", but beyond that it depends on the language.  
> **username_0**: A lot is coming down to me not understanding how languages without adjectives work. [Wondering](https://www.quora.com/unanswered/What-is-good-reading-material-for-understanding-languages-that-dont-have-adjectives) what some good resources are to learn about languages that lack adjectives.  
> **username_0**: My [latest thinking on it](https://www.reddit.com/r/linguistics/comments/ydty40/comment/iu7apwt/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).  
> **username_2**: @Lance That sounds like you're more interested in philosophy than linguistics. I'd recommend reading up on formal semantics and semantic typing, which classifies everything in language as an entity, a boolean, or a function on those (for example a predicate is a function from an entity to a boolean). Terms like "adjectives" aren't about the true nature of reality or whatever, they're about how people use words to communicate.  
> **username_0**: Yeah I'm starting to realize just how much I assumed action = verb, object = noun, type = adjective haha. Linguistics is more about the role words play in a sentence structure I guess. But it's important to know the possibilities in linguistics for making a conlang! I added more to [Tune](https://github.com/teamtreesurf/tune) describing what I went with.  

---

## 0 answers

