Re: A question and introduction
|From:||Rune Haugseng <haugrune@...>|
|Date:||Saturday, June 15, 2002, 9:25|
On Friday 14 June 2002 20:28, Andy Canivet wrote:
> So, "I don't see a house" (or even "I see no house") implies that I
> probably see nothing at all of any interest, and certainly not a house.
> If I say "I see a non-house" it seems, to a native English speaker, that I
> certainly don't see a house, but that I do see an object (and following the
> lojban thread from yesterday, that this object is probably near enough to a
> house for me to be described in terms of houses, even though it isn't one -
> "I see an ersatz house" or "I see a house shaped thing")
> Let's say you have a natlang "Splink" that typically negates nouns instead
> of verbs - does Splink's regular kind of negation mean the first kind above
> (no house, and no object), or the second kind (an object but not a house)?
> In other words - does it depend on the language or is there a primary
> "concept" of negation, regardless of how it is grammaticised in a
My conlang Kemata marks negation on nouns (and pronouns), and makes a
distinction between these two:
I don't see a house.
I see no house (but something else).
In the first case, the negation is marked on the subject, while in the
second it is marked on the object.