It is possible to run a language without adjectives by using verbs instead; Korean has adjectives but uses a verb quite often where English hasn't such a verb. But although in The Languages of Pao a verbless language is proposed, it does not seem that anyone regards Vance as really succeeding. I've often wondered, which came first, the noun or the verb?

For instance in Faust: "In the beginning was the deed."

There are null subject languages, such as Spanish, where the subject needn't be explicitly stated. This is called valency, a verb may be avalent, monovalent, divalent or trivalent. English does not allow zero-valence; all the Germanic languages including French require dummy pronouns to be attached to impersonal verbs, i.e. it snows. It is debated whether the Romance and Slavic languages are truly avalent as they conjugate subjectless verbs to the third-person singular.

This brings us into metaphysics; the mystics sometimes describe, to use Hegel's expression, "pure, undifferentiated being." In the Existentialist mantra "existence precedes essence" it seems to me that we are told something similar; the verb is prior to the noun. What does this mean in terms of Lordship and Bondage? The master tames the wild verb? Subject-verb-object: farmer-horse-plow? Even to speak about a verb, and not just in English, we need to move it from the verb place, gerund-ify it, or modify it into its full infinitive form.



Is language always masterly and slavish? Is English? Has it become this way?

Old English is not the promised land. O.E. was less ridged than modern English with respect to word-order typology. But this is neither here nor there however as every language spoken or constructed on Earth is and must be either SOV, SVO, VSO, VOS, OSV or OVS in all of its major sentences.

Of course O.E. had gerunds. And this is not especially remarkable as there are also gerundives and many numerous ways of converting a word from one lexical category to another by agglutination.

Whether or not "noun/verbs" existed in the Proto-World language is maybe not exactly the right question. Instead, what are the natures of the S-slot and the V-slot? The noun is the easiest to attack, for instance see Geach's, or also The Iconicity of the Universal Categories ‘Noun’ and ‘Verbs’. But thought is syntactic. Animals think grammatically. Human language did not evolve, but burst onto the scene; over the pre-existing order of cognition.

The verb is only static once it is used, like Schrödinger's cat. I murder; but I am sentenced for a murder; nouns are authoritarian. But be careful, it is the 'slot' in word order and not the word that should be questioned: Swimmingly swim a swimmable swim. (Adverb, verb, adjective, noun.)

Is any answer just lorem ipsum? We need a sentence that answers itself, like, "This sentence contains three a's, three c's, two d's, twenty seven e's, four f's, two g's, ten h's, eight i's, thirteen n's, six o's, ten r's, twenty five s's, twenty three t's, three u's, three v's, six w's, three x's, and four y's."


Special thanks to C.

The noun came first ofcourse, you must be, before you can do!

I agree with the previous speaker, Pointing at something and deciding what to call it together with your tribe feel pretty basic whilst giving a name to an action is way more complicated.

Verb came first because Lord said "be", then begun the Big Bang and the rest is history.

That quote from WIttgenstein is out of context. That is actually Wittgenstein quoting Augustine, and then wittgenstein criticizes his view that language is learned by learning names of objects.

I think either nouns and verbs came together or verbs came first.

You can have a full sentence with only a verb, for example: "Look!"

But you can't have a full sentence with only a noun. the word "ball" by itself can not be part of a language

Who is it? Mark!

thats two sentences, one with just a noun.


Also, the sentence "Duck!" could be interperated two ways, one as a noun one as a verb.

I don't see how language-games are masculinist. How are they "rehearsals" for huntin? He was just comparing language to a game, and sentences to moves made in those games.

Also, yes you can have a sentence with only "Mark" but as vana pointed out mark means: It is Mark.

This is also the case in wittgensteins primitive language games in which "Slab" really means: fetch me a slab.

I voted for verb. I like rhinos argument. Mostly because it is so simple. Simplicity is beautiful.

i voted for verb, it our lives we use verbs far more than nouns, nouns only name things but verbs portray everything else from feelings to action.

Noun came first in affirmative but verb came first in questions !