Re: A Language built around a novel grammar

<< Warning: long post! >>

Henrik wrote:
> How does your conlang handle the following sentences?  Does it need
more than the two/three operators already mentioned?

I like Lars' solution very much - it's actually very close to how Telona
handles these constructions. For clarity, I'll omit the obligatory
markers of aspect, number and definiteness. I will have to explain that
the phrasal syntax is strictly binary-branching; there are no unattached
words and no branch points with more than two branches. The top-level
branch point in a sentence divides the topic (given information) from
the comment (new information about the topic). Typically, therefore,
there are several ways to rearrange a sentence, putting different words
in the topic position.

HT example 1: I read the book that John gave to Mary.
Translation 1.1: I' read + book - give John give-to + Mary.

The tree structure of this sentence is as follows:
(I (read (book (give (John (give-to Mary))))))

That is, exclusively right-branching, which is the default situation.
The branching structure is indicated in writing by diacritical marks on
the words, and in speech by a corresponding system of pitch accent. The
default accent (unmarked in writing) simply means "branch to the right",
as in the example. The last word of the first half of the sentence,
immediately before the top-level branch point, is marked with an acute
accent. Here, this is the word "I", the accent being symbolised by an
apostrophe. Other arrangements could include:

1.2: Read I' + book - give John give-to + Mary.
1.3: Book - read I' - give John give-to + Mary.

I should also explain that, as befits a single-open-class-lang, each
word has a referent. You can think of "read" as meaning "reader" or
"somebody reading", for example. In "Read I' + book.", that is ((read I)
+ book), "read" has to come first in the phrase governing the "+"
operator, because the relationship between the referents of "I"/"read"
and "book" is determined by the word "read". "I read' + book." ((I read)
+ book) would not do, because "I + book" is meaningless. It is also
perhaps not obvious that each branch point corresponds to an operator.
Where no operator is given explicitly, the identity operator is to be
understood.

One could paraphrase "Read I' + book." as "You'll recognise the referent
of "read I" as somebody who is reading and who is also I, and I'm
telling you that that referent is operating on the referent of "book" in
a manner which you'll have to work out for yourself but which is
dependent on the meaning of the word "read" in some way."

HT example 2: Mary likes reading books.
Translation 2.1: Mary read + book' enjoy-oneself.  ((Mary (read book))
enjoy-oneself)

That is to say, "Mary reading a book is enjoying herself." With the
appropriate aspect markers etc., this is equivalent to "Whenever Mary
reads a book, she enjoys herself."

Bad translation 2.11: *Mary' like + read + book.  (Mary (like (read
book)))
The phrase "read + book" means "somebody reading a book", so this
sentence means "Mary likes the person who's reading a book."

Alternative 2.2: Mary enjoy-oneself' read + book.

I'd have to be careful with this one though, as it could easily end up
meaning "Mary only enjoys herself when she's reading a book." Scope and
quantification issues.

HT example 3: John likes to give books to Mary.
Translation 3: John enjoy-self' give + book` give-to + Mary.
((John enjoy-self) ((give book) (give-to Mary)))

Ah - now we need another pitch accent, to indicate that the second half
of the sentence is not exclusively right-branching. The grave accent on
"book" means that it branches left. Telona's binary branching means that
there can be no simple three-place predicates, so "A gives B to C" must
be translated as "A gives B and gives to C". Rearranging this so that
"enjoy-self" is the comment is left as an exercise for the reader :))

HT example 4: When it is raining, I drink tea and read a book.
Translation 4.1: I during + rain' drink + tea` read + book.
Translation 4.2: I during + rain' drink + tea, =' read + book.

"Rain" here would be quantified such that it would refer to rainy
surroundings, not just individual drops of water falling from the sky.
The second translation, using a second clause and an anaphor
co-referring with the first clause, is more idiomatic.

HT example 5: Mary liked John's book.
Translation 5.1: Mary' like + book - own John.
Translation 5.2: Book - like Mary' - own John.

The second translation makes more sense pragmatically: "The book that
Mary likes is owned by John.", rather than 5.1's "Mary is a John's-book
liker.", assuming that the listener knows that Mary liked *some* book,
but not which.

Does this make sense?

Jonathan.
==

Reply