Re: 'Nor' in the World's Languages

On Sun, Aug 06, 2006 at 04:36:50PM +1000, Yahya Abdal-Aziz wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm forwarding a (rather long) reply I recently made to Maarten van
> Wijk about a question he raised on the Linguist list.  My main
> question to you all is:
>
> In your conlangs, what kinds of logical connectives have you implemented?
> Examples would be:
> 1. A and B - AND
In Tatari Faran: A B ei.
Example:
	kiran     sa    diru si'ei.
	young.man CVY.M girl CVY.F:and
	The young man and the girl.

> 2. A or B or both (A and B) - the "inclusive or", OR
None (yet). I'm not sure if the san faran even make this
inclusive/exclusive distinction.[1] Inclusive-or is something not many
natlangs grasp intuitively, and TF doesn't either.

[1] Side-note: it's interesting, though, that TF does distinguish
between inclusive/exclusive plural 1st person pronouns (_faan_ vs.
_mana_). This is a different kind of exclusion/inclusion, of course.


> 3. A or B but not both (A and B) - the "exclusive or", XOR
A B ibe.

Example:
	fasa tikis       so    buneis         sei   ibe.
	meat rabbit.PART CVY.N giant.mushroom CVY.F otherwise
	Rabbit meat, otherwise giant mushroom.

> 4. If A, then B - "A implies B"
The subjunctive modifier _era_ is used for the antecedent, imperative
word order is used, and the verb complement is overtly omitted. The
complement appears in the consequent, which is in indicative word order.

Example:

tapa era  tse sa    buara   na,    tse na    hamra sinasu kei   aram.
walk SBJV you CVY.M volcano RCP.M  you RCP.M see   lava   ORG.F COMPL
If you go (walk) to the volcano, you will see lava.


> 5. A only if B - "A is implied by B"
Same as the above: you just reverse the order of the clauses. There is
no separate construction that emphasizes the passivity of the English
equivalent.

Example:

tsa na hamra sinasu kei aram, tapa era tse sa buara na.
You will see lava, if you go to the volcano.


> 6. A if and only if B  - "A and  B imply each other", "A and  B are
> equivalent"
No direct equivalent. Often, as in many natlangs, either of the previous
two cases may be interpreted as equivalence.


> 7. not A - ie the statement A is not true - cf Malay "tidak" for
> logical negation, below
The negative particles _be_ and the negative complement prefix _bei-_
are used, in various combinations, to express different degrees of
negativity. If _bei-_ is not used, the complement is omitted from the
clause.

Examples:

	huu na    hamra be  sinasu kei.
	I   RCP.M see   not lava   ORG.F (complement omitted)
	I don't see lava. (I didn't see any lava.)

	huu na    hamra sinasu kei   bei'aram.
	I   RCP.M see   lava   ORG.F not:COMPL
	I don't see lava. (I can't see any lava.)

	huu na    hamra be  sinasu kei   bei'aram.
	I   RCP.M see   not lava   ORG.F not:COMPL
	I don't see any lava at all! (I can't see no lava anywhere!)


> 8. M is not a N - ie the thing M is not one of the things N - cf Malay
> "bukan" for categorical negation, below
Probably the same (or a parallel construction) of the previous, except
that with statements of being, you use the negative complement _bai_ to
indicate negation:

	fei  so    tiki   bai.
	that CVY.N rabbit not.COMPL
	That is not a rabbit.

(BTW, as far as I know, the Malay _bukan_ is simply nominal negation,
not categorical negation; you can say _dia bukan emak saya_ - she is not
my mother, yet she may still be someone else's mother. I'm not a native
speaker, though, so maybe I'm wrong.)


> 9. neither A nor B - ie not A and not B
Tatari Faran simply appends additional predicates:

	fei  so    tiki   bai,      misai bai.
	that CVY.N rabbit not.COMPL deer  not.COMPL
	That is not a rabbit nor a deer.


> A secondary question is, if you wish to comment, how strictly do they
> match the logician's view of those connectives?
Not very. Inclusive-or is rather rare in natlangs (or at least, it's not
usually distinguished from exclusive-or, which is often assumed), so TF
doesn't have an explicit construction for it. Even more, _ibe_ has the
feeling of "if not (this), then", so it could also mean "otherwise".

The if-then construction with _era_ is also rather lax. It can mean
either "A if and only if B", or "if A then B". Which one is meant
depends on the context, and sometimes it's ambiguous.

As for negation, TF doesn't understand the concept of double negation:
i.e., negatives do not cancel. Negatives are strengthened the more of
them you stack (e.g., in the example where a strong negation is conveyed
by using both _be_ and _bei-_ in the same clause). Another example,
which is somewhat like Russian:

	huu na    hamra be  bahai   ko    bei'aram.
	I   RCP.M see   not nothing ORG.N not:COMPL
	I don't see anything at all (lit., I don't see nothing not at all).

Unlike Russian, though, stacking negatives is optional.


T

--
Don't hide in the closet; wear yourself out.

Reply