Re: Random questions about "not" and "and"

The confusing elements here are actually the conjunctions, because in
English they have variable distributive properties. In Japanese, for
example, the existence of the gerundive form "-te" eliminates this ambiguity
because the gerundive verb will take the conjugation of the next closest
conjugated verb.
E.g. Mise e itte pan wo kainasai.
Shop to go.GER bread OBJ buy.IMP

Tora wo hanashite kako wo hirakanai de.
tiger OBJ release.GER cage OBJ open.NEG IMP

Cf.

Tora wo hanashite, _soshite_ kako wo hirakanai de.
tiger OBJ release.IMP*, _and_ cage etc.
* the informal imperative is identical to the gerundive (shortened from "-te
kudasai", i.e. gerundive + please)
 = release the tiger, and don't open the cage

Classical Arithide possesses the same property, whereas Dethric has two
forms of each conjunction, one supra-verbal (kan), the other sub-verbal (o).
Meaning, "Do not open the cage _o_ let the tiger out" = English; "do not
open the cage _kan_ let the tiger out" = leave the cage closed but let the
tiger out.

Tangentially, Modern Arithide has three forms of "and" to signify the
different relationships between the two objects/actions on either side, i.e.
whether A is more important than B, less, or equal to it. It also has two
forms of "or", one for a neutral listing and one expecting the listener to
choose the first option.

Eugene

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 8:19 PM, Gary Shannon <fiziwig@...> wrote:

> While parsing some sentences, it occurred to me that the sentence: "The
> ball is not blue." can be interpreted two different ways:
>
> the ball is-not blue.
> the ball is not-blue.
>
> "is-not" can be treated as a verb (or "not" taken as an adverb), or
> "not-blue" can be treated as an adjective.
>
> I tend to want to interpret "not-blue" as an adjective. Although it does
> complicate sentences like "The ball is not blue OR green" which would have
> to be interpreted as "The ball is not-blue AND not-green." as opposed to
> "The ball is-not blue OR green."
>
> But even "The ball is-not blue OR green." actually means "The ball is-not
> blue AND is-not green." so again, when actually spelled out, the meaning can
> still be interpreted two ways:
>
> "The ball is-not blue OR green." =>
> "The ball is-not blue AND is-not green." OR
> "The ball is not-blue AND is not-green."
>
> Which way do your conlangs handle this?
>
> Another random question about "and":
>
> "Go to the store and buy some bread."
>
> can be interpreted as two commands:
>
> "Go to the store."
> "Buy some bread."
>
> But in the following case, that doesn't work because the two separate
> commands do not convey the intention of the original compound sentence:
>
> "Do not open the cage and let the tiger out."
>
> "Do not open the cage."
> "Let the tiger out."
>
> This implies that "Do not" must be distributed to all the verbs:
>
> "Do not [open the cage and let the tiger out]." =>
> "Do not open the cage."
> "Do not let the tiger out."
>
> But what about:
>
> "Do not let the tiger out and lock the cage before you leave."
>
> Clearly, "Do not" is NOT distributed to both verbs in this case.
>
> How do any of your conlangs address this?
>
> --gary
>

Reply