Re: Yes, and yes
|From:||H. S. Teoh <hsteoh@...>|
|Date:||Friday, March 14, 2003, 21:35|
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 09:47:08AM +0000, Jan van Steenbergen wrote:
> --- H. S. Teoh skrzypszy:
> > The answer is, surprisingly, not _ji'e_, but _0so'_.
> > As some of you may know, _0so'_ is the strong optative marker, usually
> > used to indicate the speaker's opinion. For example:
> Hehe. Is this a case of anadewism? Because that is more or less what
> happens in Russian: "da" normally means "yes", but also serve like an
> optative marker, for example in "da zdravtsvujet".
Probably. I was expecting it to be an anadewism. :-)
> > So why is it that _0so'_ would be used in this odd way as an answer to a
> > yes/no question, instead of the expected _ji'e_? As my informant explains
> > to me, one would not use _ji'e_ in questions like "will you help me?",
> > because _ji'e_ means "it is true", and it doesn't really answer the
> > question. _0so'_ on the other hand, in this context, indicates that the
> > speaker is saying, "yes, I will help you as I *ought* to."
> So what do you answer if asked: "Is it going to rain tomorrow"?
_0so'_, "it ought to", "I think it should". After all, _0so'_ *is* the
optative marker that indicates opinion.
> > This interesting feature having been cleared up, I then asked my informant
> > what would be the appropriate answer in the negative. It is,
> > unsurprisingly, _myso'_, a contraction of _my'e 0so'_ (it is not the case
> > that it ought to be). _my'e_, of course, would be an appropriate negative
> > answer for true/false questions.
> Can _myso'_ on its turn also serve as a negative optative: "May he not
> ...", "I should not ..."?[snip]
Most definitely. For example:
myso' jh3t3 luy's 3ngaau'.
"May she not go to the enemies!" ("Go" here carries the force of
Depending on whether you're addressing the person (since Ebisedian
pronouns do not distinguish between 2nd and 3rd person) this could also be
read "you'd *better* not be going to the enemies!"
> > However, there is another interesting side to _myso'_: if I was told a
> > false statement, I would object with a _my'e_, "that is not true". But I
> > could also reply _myso'_, which means, "it may be true, but I don't agree
> > with it!" So I can either acknowledge, deny, or acknowledge under protest.
> Nice feature![snip]
It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious.