Re: Laranao modals, aspects, etc.
| From: | Grandsire, C.A. <grandsir@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Tuesday, December 21, 1999, 7:50 |
|---|
Daniel Andreasson wrote:
>
> The Laranao quantifiers:
>
> onga * all, collective ('all')
> ongai * all, distributive ('every,each')
> ele * any / hypothetical sg. ('any one',
> 'he who...' 'any one who...')
> elao * any / hypothetical pl. ('any',
> 'those who...')
> eto * some sg. ('someone,something')
> etao * some pl.
> ero * many
>
> Did I miss any important quantifiers? Does this
> look like a reasonable system?
>
Maybe "a few", "a little" or "few", and maybe also "no", but you can
easily express them by phrases like "not many", "not any" (in fact, if
you want to be a little less logical, you could replace etao 'some pl.'
by a phrase like "not all" :) ).
> The Laranao modals:
>
> oma * propositional should
> ece * permissive may,let,can
> 'You *may* use my car.'
> anoa * ability can,be able to
> lua * possibility/uncertainty may
> 'You *may* feel a bit sick when we take off.'
> axa * obligation must, have to, need to
> 'You *must* eat your vegetables.'
> as@ * conclusive must
> 'You've travelled all day. You *must* be tired.'
> pa * imperative
> gi * hypothetical
> ira * subjunctive/conditional/desire may,wish,will,want,desire
> '*May* you have a good life!'
> 'I *want* to go by car!'
>
> Is it 'natural' to have all these modals? At least
> in English many of them go together (e.g. 'can' which
> is both 'permissive' and 'ability'). Is it too logical?
> I mean, you can't tell jokes based on the ambiguity
> of such words. :)
Oh, I'm sure you can find natlangs with even more modals :) .
> And can I include 'imperative' and 'subjunctive' in
> these 'modals'?
>
That's what they are :) . Yes, 'imperative' and 'subjunctive' are
modals ("moods").
> The Laranao aspects:
>
> io * negative 'not'
> toa * inceptive 'begin'
> he@ * cessative 'stop'
> area * ?name 'to be able to make in time'
> if@ * habitual 'use to' 'to do regularly'
> 0 * perfective 'complete action'
> mi * imperfective 'incomplete action'
>
> Is there a name for the 'make in time' aspect?
> It's used like: 'Will you be able to bake all
> those cookies in time for christmas?' =
> 'Will you _area_ bake all those cookies before christmas?'
As someone pointed out, it seems to be a melt between a mood and an
aspect. Anyway I like it, but you will have difficulties to name it (I
can't personnally).
> Can I have 'negative' as an aspect?
>
I would put it with the modals, as it is not an aspect of time but a
way to explain how (mood) the action took place (or not). Also, the
modals are not mutually exclusive, whereas the aspects generally are.
For me, the negative always go with the imperative and the subjunctive.
So you should make it a modal.
> The Laranao evidentials:
>
> ate * perceptive/direct experience 'experienced with own
> senses: see,smell,hear...'
> lu@ * quotative/hearsay
>
> I think these two evidentials will be very optional
> and not used very often, only when you really want to make
> clear how you got the info in a subtle way.
>
> So what do you think about all these particles? Myself,
> I have a feeling that the borders between the modals,
> aspects and evidentials are a bit blurred here and there,
> but are there any real problems? Comments are as usual much
> appreciated.
>
I think it's a fairly naturalistic system, blurring gives it only more
naturality :) .
--
Christophe Grandsire
Philips Research Laboratories -- Building WB 145
Prof. Holstlaan 4
5656 AA Eindhoven
The Netherlands
Phone: +31-40-27-45006
E-mail: grandsir@natlab.research.philips.com