Re: Negation?

On Thu, 8 Jul 1999, Sally Caves wrote:

> John Cowan wrote:
> >
> > To summarize, Laadan has evidential particles that show "how you know".
>
> Yes, so I see (said she, poring over her new LAadan grammar).
>
> > With the exception of "self-evident" (on which people can obviously
> > disagree) most of them make flat contradictions not so much impossible
> > as pointless:
> >
> > A:      It's hot today (I perceive)
> > B:      It's not hot today. (I perceive)
> >
> > is not a true contradiction, since each is simply stating his or
> > her perception.  The true contradiction would be "You don't
> > perceive that" which is self-evidently (:-)) nonsense.
>
> Wnat do followers (and critics) of LAadan think of this system?
> She borrows it, doesn't she, from certain native American languages?
Evidentials are a well-known grammatical device from some American
Indian languages--I tend to think that the evidentials and the tonal
stuff (borrowed from Navajo, a language SHE has a lot of experience
with) represent the extent of LAadan's linguistic borrowing from Native
America, though.

Of course, that's just how I see it ...

Dirk

--
Dirk Elzinga
dirk.elzinga@m.cc.utah.edu                   "All grammars leak."
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~elzinga/                 -Edward Sapir