Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Trigger language?

From:daniel andreasson <danielandreasson@...>
Date:Friday, January 17, 2003, 17:33
John Cowan wrote:

> Au contraire. I hold that that is a misuse of "lie"; lies > are intentional, always. Making false statements may be > unintentional, but if so it is not lying. > > Is this a cross-language issue?
Hum. Good question. I thought about this briefly before sending it. Haven't we had a discussion about this already? I don't think it's a cross-language issue. Rather idiolectal. Some people claim that you can't lie unintentionally and some claim that you can. I guess my semantic field for "to lie" is somewhat wider than yours. Perhaps. But I don't think it has to do with me speaking Swedish. Or perhaps you're right. Now I'm confused. Anyway. In an active language it is possible to have a word _tapa_ which means 'to not tell the truth'. If you use it with the AGT affix, it means 'to intentionally lie'. If you use it with the PAT affix, it means 'to unintentionally make a false statement'. But it's basically the same word. That's what I was trying to say. So "to lie" might have been a bad example, but in a language with the word _tapa_ it would work. Daniel Andreasson --