Re: A question and introduction

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
> language?
My conlang Kemata marks negation on nouns (and pronouns), and makes a
distinction between these two:

Gadbuvaire raidone.
gat-bu-0.v.ai.re  raido-ne
see-Ps-S.1p.M.Neg house-NISg
I don't see a house.

Gadbuvai raidohune.
gat-bu-0.v.ai raido-hune
see-Ps-S.1p.M house-NISgNeg
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.

--------------
 Rune Haugseng
[R}n@ hV}gsEN]

Reply