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

In 'õSet'akh (a language which I have invented in much detail in far-off
days) negation is indicated by a suffix -kh to the verb. (I don't remember
the negating suffix for adjectives right now, but it was certainly something
with a kh in it.) So in normal sentences it's the verb being negated, and
when "not" is distributed over verbs, they all get the suffix. Sar similarly
has an infix for negating verbs. (In fact, English is the only natlang with
this kind of distributing I can think of. Dutch, French and Vietnamese would
rather say "Do not open the cage, so that the tiger doesn't get out.") In
the languages I have invented and which use adverbs, I have always
considered them as modifying the sentence (and thus, in fact, the verb).
Negating adjectives would rather be done by deriving an opposite, like, "The
ball is unblue."

Greets
David


2008/12/3 Gary Shannon <fiziwig@...>

> 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
>


-- 
Idustvok va yentelkvil gifpir, puk gifpir, ivan kitil.

Reply