From: Paul Bennett <Paul.Bennett@...>
> Well, I'd like to say "you asked for it, folks..." but the true anwser =
is
"not
> enough of y'all tried to stop me..." <G>, and here is the latest greate=
st
> Wenetaic. It's not "finished", but it's "improved".
<snip>
> Positionals
>
> -a- Near
> -o- Far
> -u- Apparent
> -=EB- Obscure
> -e- Probable/Believed
> -i- Improbable/Disbelieved
Interesting mix of locatives (near, far), epistemic evidentials (apparent=
,
obscure) and epistemic judgementals (probable/believed,
improbable/disbelieved) this list! Are these all associated with the sam=
e
word class? nouns? verbs? I ask because while locatives are generally
associated with nominals or adverbials, evidentials and judgementals are
typically modal predicate modifiers. Could you elaborate on their usage
here?
> Cases (used in forming particles)
>
> >Gene(ra)tive (these all take the -a- Positional, almost always elided)
> s'e - possessive (normal genetive, something which is possessed)
> ya - trapping (an habitual or essential possession)
> pa - familial (technically used for a family member, also extended to
> very close friends. When used to or of people and things outside the
> previous definition, it implies a sense of "solidarity" or
> "cameraderie").
Is the distinction between 'possessive' and 'trapping' that between
alienable and inalienable possession or are you going for something else
here?
> tuu - partative (a section of an uncountable substance, or made of
> something)
> ce - component (a distinguishable, seperate part of an object, or
> member of a countable group)
Hmm, I like this distinction. Do you also make a mass/count noun
distinction morphologically?
> so - produced (that which is made by something)
> nu - productive (that which forms something)
Not sure I fully understand these! I would have to see examples of their
usage.
> >Attributive
> ta - absolute attributive (used to form similes, metaphors, and so
> forth)
Ditto. Could you give an example of how this is used?
> re - relative attributive (marks the noun which is being compared
>
> against. "x y-arek" means "as x as y", "x y-orek" means "x-er than y")
> /* the above is misleading gibberish, please see below */
>
> The relative attributive <re> takes the -k- gender as agent, and
> attaches to the attribute to form the superlative.
>
> Examples of Attributives:
> (ap) makhetap - (it is) big
> (ap) makhetap Yonutrek - (it is) as big as John
> (ap) makhetap Yonutorek - (it is) bigger than John
> (ap) makhekrep - (it is) the biggest of its kind
> (ap) makheprep - (it is) about average size compared to an anaphoric se=
t
> (ap) makheporep - (it is) the biggest of an anaphoric set
>
> /* "Ar makhertar Yonutcerorek" could be used as a very personal
compliment,
> though one that would probably cause mixed emotions <GGG> */
This looks interesting, but I suspect that there's more here then you've
explained. More, more...
> >Tense
> ng=EB=EB - past tense
> ngoo - future tense
>
> When combined with positionals, the following specific meanings result:
> ang=EB=EB, angoo - as in English "recent past", "near future".
> ong=EB=EB, ongoo - as in English "ancient past", "distant future".
> =EBng=EB=EB, =EBngoo - "mythical" past, "prophetic" future
> ung=EB=EB, ungoo - "obvious", "well known" past and future
> eng=EB=EB, engoo - something like "IMHO", or "IIRC"
> ing=EB=EB, ingoo - yet to be fully deciphered, often used when describ=
ing
> enemy propoganda and non-orthodox religious beliefs
Ah, so this is how they (positionals) are used! Very creative!
> Tenses can be compounded infinitely, each tense mark being taken as
> reletive to its antecedent. For example <takti.m.yi.t.=EB.ng=EB=EB.t.a=
.ngoo.t>
> {VI.{G1.ACC}.{G3.OBS.PAST}.{G3.NEAR.FUT}.G3} means literally "in the ne=
ar
> future of the mythical past, he touches me", but translates as "in the
> mythical past, he was about to touch me".
Is this how aspect is realized? I would like to see more examples of thi=
s.
> >Location /*long and complex history, basically inspired by hearing abo=
ut
a
> similar feature in some North American natlangs*/
> yi - directional (roughly equivalent to Dative Case)
> ru - locational (roughly equivalent to Accusative Case)
In what sense do you see these equivalencies?
> >Truth Value /* check the CONLANG list archives towards the end of 1998
for a
> list of contributors, meng=EB=EBmakh=EBk this thread ran and ran */
> khu - definately true
> kh=EB - seemingly/probably/partly true
> y=EB - indeterminate truth/falsehood
> th=EB - seemingly/probably/partly false
> thu - definately false
>
> Positionals are used with the above to show evidentiality, ie how/why o=
ne
> knows/thinks that this is the truth value.
>
> akhu, akh=EB, etc - personal experience
> okhu, okh=EB, etc - reported experience, imparted knowledge
> ukhu, ukh=EB, etc - deduced from plentiful evidence
> =EBkhu, =EBkh=EB, etc - implied from scant evidence
> ekhu, ekh=EB, etc - taken on faith, generally accepted
> ikhu, ikh=EB, etc - generally accepted, but disputed "here & now"
We are again in the realm of epistemic modality, a favorite topic of mine.
My language, amman iar, also has 5 epistemic modal inflections, 3
judgementals and 2 evidentials (and an even larger number of deontic
modals) :
Judgementals
Assertion : unmarked modality,
Speculative/Possibility : A weak judgment characterized by what is
epistemicly possible or a speculation about an event,
Deductive/Necessity : A strong judgement characterized by what is
epistemically necessary or a deduction about an event,
Evidentials
Quotative/Hearsay : used when the speaker's evidence is based on secondha=
nd
information.
Sensory : used when the speaker's evidence is based on firsthand sensory
information
The last actually comprises 4 modals depending on which sense provides th=
e
evidence (visual, auditory, olfactory or tactile).
> >Volitional - /*thanks for insipration to Sally Caves, Matt Pearson and
Larry
> Schelin, all on the CONLANG list*/
> w=EB - deals with the desire to do/be something in various ways
>
> aw=EB - want to
> ow=EB - fail to
> uw=EB - appear to
> =EBw=EB - pretend not to / secretively
> ew=EB - "because it's the right/expected/honorable thing to do"
> iw=EB - "for no particular/discernable reason", spontaneously
Yes I remember these concepts from both Matt's Tokana and Sally's Teonaht.
Two excellant sources of inspiration. Keep listening to them.
> Affirmative/Negative
>
> Evidentials are used to form standard affirmative/negative responses.
These can
> be combined with or replaced by restating the word about which the
question was
> asked, with <-ne> to show the negative.
> The word <yaa> is used to give a kind of "grudging" agreement, or an
agreement
> where the respondent has no pertinent evidence to form an opinion.
> The particle <ru> is used when forming pronouns used to point out the
answer to
> a <kii> question.
A very modal language yours. It would be interesting to see how these
diverse modal influences interact. One can imagine some very subtle
semantics emerging.
> Suffixes - are used almost exactly the same way as if they were prepose=
d
to
> their associated word in English.
> /*main sources are the Latin and PIE natlangs*/
>
> -ne Not
> -khe And
> -ra Additive Or (x yra zra =3D one or more of x y z)
> -co Exlusive Or (x yco zco =3D exactly one of x y z)
> (w xco yra zco =3D w (x yra)co zco =3D one or both of x y or one of w z=
)
> (w xra yco zra =3D w (x yco)ra zra)
There is an interesting book that you might want to read called 'Everythi=
ng
That Linguist Have Always Wanted To Know about Logic But Were Ashamed To
Ask' by James McCawley.
I've got more comments, but I got to run. Keep up the good work.
David