Re: Auxiliary verbs

Alain Lemaire wrote:
>I ran into a problem when I came to developing auxiliary verbs - or
>should I say modal verbs. (...) The problem arises when it comes
>down to negations of those modal verbs - and then especially the
>modal verb that expresses an obligation ('must', 'have to',
>'should'). A negation of this verb can mean two things.
(...)
>My question is as follows: is this distinction between two possible
>forms of negation of the modal verb 'have to'/'must'/'should' a
>typical feature of European (German, Latin) languages? Or is it a
>distinction that is made universally - so every language has it's
>own way of saying either 'je hoeft niet te gaan' or 'je moet niet
>gaan'?
AIUI, the difference between modality of negation and negation of modality
is a rather fundamental part of modal logic. Similar distinctions exist for
virtually all modal or modal-like verbs:
not possible to X <> possible that not X
require that not X <> not require that X
cause not to X <> not cause to X
and can be also constructed for other verbs, altho the difference doesn't
usually seem very clear:
known to not X <> not known to X
read not-X (to read something else instead) <> not read X

The easiest way to convey this meaning seems to be to have two "opposite"
modalities. Each meaning can be then expressed either with "prefixed" or
"postfixed" negation:
"Not compulsory to X" = "allowed not to X"
"Not allowed to X" = "compulsory not to X"
but it is possible to get by with just one root form too, since the above
examples show that "allowed to X" can be formed as a double negation "not
compulsory to not X" (or vice versa).


>And: could somebody give me some examples of how it is (not) being
>done in other (preferably non-European) languages - or (your own)
>con-langs?
Finnish (still European, but at least non-Indo-E.) gets by with the
auxiliaries "täytyy" (must) ja "voi" (can). Both "prefix" and "postfix"
negation are possible; the constructions are roughly "must be without X-ing"
= "not can X" and "not must X" = "can be without X-ing".

There is however slight semantic difference between the two forms, since
"voi" has a more logical air in it, and "täytyy" a more decisiv. A sentence
such as:
Jos ei voi juosta, täytyy olla juoksematta.
if no:PASS can run:INF1, must be run:INF2:ABESS
might seem trivial if translated as "If man can't run, man mustn't run", but
the actual meaning is closer to "If running is not a possible option, one
must not choose it".

John Vertical