Re: Laranao modals, aspects, etc.

Christophe Grandsire a écrit:

> Daniel Andreasson wrote:
> > 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" :) ).
'Not all'. Ahh, that's ambiguity for ya! :)
And as I wrote in my reply to Matt's posting, I'll make
up some more when I have words for 'little', etc.

> > And can I include 'imperative' and 'subjunctive' in
> > these 'modals'?
> That's what they are :) . Yes, 'imperative' and 'subjunctive' are
> modals ("moods").
I know. I meant that I should perhaps have four 'moods'
like indicative, imperative, subjunctive and negative,
but come to think of it, that's kinda stupid when I have
all these modal particles. I might as well incorporate
the moods into them, mightn't I?

> > 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.
Yeah, that's what Matt said also. You are completely right.
My bad. ;)

> > 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,
> I think it's a fairly naturalistic system, blurring gives it only more
> naturality :) .
I know. That was kind of a trick question. But only kind of. :)

/ Daniel