Re: Messy orthography (Re: Sound change rules for erosion)

Paul Bennett wrote at 2003-11-21 18:22:33 (-0500)
 > On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:22:45 -0500, John Cowan <cowan@...>
 > wrote:
 >
 > Odd note: Googling Sakao, it appears on Langmaker.com, which is odd
 > because I was convinced it was a natlang. It also appears in
 > Ethnologue.com (code SKU) thus I'm officially confused. Are there
 > two Sakaos out there?
 >

Langmaker includes Babel texts of natlangs.  Sakao is spoken in
Vanuatu, as the Ethnologue says.  Jaques Guy (who submitted the text
to Langmaker) did fieldwork on it there, and posted this to the list
in 1992; it's about Tolomako, but some contrasting features of Sakao
are mentioned.

 | Date: Fri, 25 Sep 92 07:35:22 EST
 | From: j.guy@trl.OZ.AU (Jacques Guy)
 | Subject: Languages where  when=if=who=which=that
 |
 | This is another "plug", if you please, for the simplicity,
 | elegance, and logic of those languages of Vanuatu which I have been
 | so fond of quoting as paragons of what a universal language should
 | be.
 |
 | The word for "if" is "va" in Tolomako. So is the word for "when"
 | (the conjunction, not the interrogative adverb).  Finally, to add
 | insult to injury, Tolomako "va" translates our relative pronouns
 | "who", "whom", "whose", "which", "that". And I call that simple,
 | elegant, and logical?
 |
 | Tolomako verbs have no tenses, no aspects, only two moods, realis
 | and irrealis. The realis corresponds fairly well to our past and
 | present, the irrealis to our future, subjunctive, optative and
 | imperative. In other words the realis is for what is granted,
 | acquired, achieved, the irrealis covers what could be or could have
 | been.
 |
 | "Va", with a verb in the irrealis expresses a contrary-to- fact
 | condition, e.g. "if pigs had wings", "if the sea were boiling
 | hot". With a verb in the realis it means "if" when the context
 | indicates the future, and "when" when it indicates the past. There
 | is no room for the present. And why should there be for "if" and
 | "when"? (Think about it).  Logical? Oh yes indeed.
 |
 | Say the context indicates the future. How dare you say "when"?
 | "When" implies certainty, "if" possibility. Are you an infallible
 | prophet that you should be allowed to say "when" referring to the
 | future?
 |
 | Say the context indicates the past. What do you mean "if"?  Either
 | it happened or it didn't. If it did not happen and you are
 | fantasizing about what could have taken place if it had happened,
 | then "va" and the irrealis (contrary-to-fact condition) is what you
 | ought to use. If it did happen, then there is no question of doubt,
 | no conditional meaning [Note 1]. So it must be "when".
 |
 | How about "va" doing the job of a relative pronoun now? How can it
 | ever be justified on logical grounds? First, let's clear the ground
 | about relative clauses. Take this famous example out of la
 | grammaire de Port-Royal: "the invisible God has created the visible
 | world" ("Dieu invisible a cre'e' le monde visible"). It is glossed
 | therein as "God, who is invisible, has created the world, which is
 | visible" then as "God is invisible. He created the world. The world
 | is visible". And that last gloss is precisely what you would say in
 | Tolomako, or Sakao, or any of those pet languages of mine. But the
 | English wording allows us to interpret the original sentence as
 | "the invisible God (there's another one, visible) has created the
 | visible world (there's another one, invisible)" i.e. "the God who
 | is visible has created the world which is visible". In English the
 | difference is only one of punctuation. In Tolomako it is one of
 | syntax.  You would say "this God "va" you cannot see has created
 | that world "va" you can see". The verbs (can see, cannot see) would
 | be in the realis. Logical? Sensible? I say YES! "This God"
 | contrasts with another one (that God). Ditto for "world".  Why? How
 | do you tell this God from that God? *IF* you can see it it's this
 | one, *IF* you can't it's the other(s).
 |
 | Sakao behaves in a similar manner. Only immensely more complex as
 | it has seven degrees of deixis where Tolomako has only three
 | (here/this, yonder/yon, there/that), and has many classes of
 | deictics where Tolomako has only one.
 |
 | The two moods (realis and irrealis) which you have seen affect
 | verbs also affect substantives. That leads to very interesting
 | distinctions that English just cannot express cleanly.
 |
 |
 | [Note 1] Not quite true. Say you are a chieftain involved in a
 | tribal war right now. You have no news of Tari, one of your
 | lieutenants, sent to attack Thngaru's rear. How do you express "if
 | Tari won"? Alas, I was too involved in trying to understand Sakao
 | phonology and holophrastic constructions to even think of that
 | question to put to my informant, but I know in my inner brain that
 | it would be "va" and the realis.

Replies