Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

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 > language?
My conlang Kemata marks negation on nouns (and pronouns), and makes a distinction between these two: Gadbuvaire raidone. raido-ne see-Ps-S.1p.M.Neg house-NISg I don't see a house. Gadbuvai raidohune. 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]


Douglas Koller, Latin & French <latinfrench@...>Negation (was: Re: A question and introduction)