Re: OT: Negation as the indicative standard

I think it might be more natural to "think positive",
just as for numbers. People first invented natural
numbers (1, 2, 3...); after a long time, they invented
0; after another while, they thought of negative
numbers (-1, -2...). Now they handle with imaginary
numbers (square root of -1...)

--- "Thomas R. Wier" <trwier@...> wrote:
> From:    Doug Dee <amateurLinguist@...>
> > In a message dated 1/18/2004 12:37:56 PM Eastern
> Standard Time,
> > axiem@FASTMAIL.FM writes:
> >
> > >What he was curious about is if there's a
> language that does it the other
> > >way around. That is, a standard indicative
> sentence is normally negative,
> > >and an extra word/morpheme/something must be
> added to make it an
> > >affirmative.
> >
> > I seem to recall reading somewhere that no natural
> language does this, but
> > one comes close, in that a negative sentence needs
> a negative particle and a
> > positive sentence needs a positive particle, so
> that both are equally marked.
> >
> > Now, if only I could recall where I read that and
> what language was alleged
> > to have that feature . . .
>
> Some languages mark negation only as a fusional
> inflection
> on the verb.  Thus, such languages may be
> interpreted to have
> *no* basic form of the verb:  just two different
> paradigms,
> one positive and one negative.
>
>
 =========================================================================
> Thomas Wier            "I find it useful to meet my
> subjects personally,
> Dept. of Linguistics    because our secret police
> don't get it right
> University of Chicago   half the time." --
> octogenarian Sheikh Zayed of
> 1010 E. 59th Street     Abu Dhabi, to a French
> reporter.
> Chicago, IL 60637

=====
Philippe Caquant

"Le langage est source de malentendus."
(Antoine de Saint-Exupery)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus

Reply