Re: Trivalent logic in Aymara?

Pablo Flores wrote:

>Kristian Jensen <kljensen@...> wrote:
>>
>> Since bivalent logic has the true/false opposition, I take it that a
>> trivalent logic must be something like true/unconfirmed/false. With
>> that as my understanding of what trivalent logic means, I take it
>> that what Aymara really has is a logical category of irrealis -
>> making no assertion as to the validity of a specific event or state
>> of affairs.
>>
>> Consider modal categories (realis vs irrealis) together with the
>> negative below, and we get a trivalent logic, right?:
>>
>> Realis:   Strongly asserting that a specific event or state of
>>           affairs has actually happened or holds true.
>> Irrealis: Making _no_ assertion whatsoever that an actual event
>>           or state of affairs actually happened or holds true.
>> Negative: Asserting that events or state of affairs do _not_
>>           hold.
>>
>> Is that what is meant by trivalent logic?
>
>Fascinating! I hadn't thought of it. It *is* really alien to
>Western culture; we usually assert things or negate them. Even
>if we express a doubt, we have to use periphrasis which don't
>convey the exact meaning (using verbs like "doubt" or "suppose").
Well, western languages do not always express irrealis mode (or=20
the idea of such) pariphrastically. Spanish, for instance, has a=20
conjugation called the subjunctive which does not assert the actuality=20
of an event or state of affairs. Of course, its not exactly the same=20
as the prototypical irrealis, but I think it comes fairly close.

>
>On a different topic, do you (anybody) know anything
>about trivalent logic that parallels Boole's Laws?
>
>>
>> One subcategory of the irrealis that many American languages have is
>> something called evidentiality - the linguistic coding of
>> epistemology or certainty of truth. For instance, according to
>> Payne's "Describing Morphosytax", Huallaga Quechua (a language in
>> the same region as Aymara) has three enclitics that are clearly
>> evidential. These enclitics are -mi "direct evidence, -shi
>> "hearsay", and -chi "inference" (view in monospace font like
>> courier):
>/snip/
>
>I knew a bit about Quechua, but not about the "inference" mark,
>which is extremely interesting, especially regarding cultural
>issues (e.g. politeness).
What I like to picture is a courtroom with a witness testifying:

Q: Did Caine kill Abel?
A: Yes, Caine killed (inference) Abel.
Q: So you did not actually witness Caine killing Abel?
A: Well, since cynide is (hearsay) poisonous, and Caine gave=20
   (direct evidence) Abel some before he knocked (direct=20
   evidence) me out, I must say that Caine most certainly DID
   kill (inference) Abel.

The witness here is absolutely certain that Caine killed Abel, but=20
must say so as an inference for he did not actually witnessed it.
Such a situation makes evidentiality interesting because the=20
epistemology of the testimony given by a witness is subject to=20
grammatical scrutiny.

>> Incidentally, Boreanesian also has evidential clitics. These are
>> also hearsay and inferential, and can only be used together with the
>> irrealis modal clitic. So Boreanesian could perhaps in this sense be
>> a conlang with a trivalent logic as well.
>
>Why didn't I think of that first? :)
>
Go ahead, I'm not stopping you from using evidentiality. Its good fun.

From the same book ("Describing Morphosyntax" by Thomas Payne), here=20
are some samples from another language with the most complex =
evidentiality=20
system that Payne ever saw. It is Tuyuca, a Tucanoan language with an=20
evidential paradigm including: visible, non-visible, inferred, hearsay,=20
and general knowledge.

   kiti-g=EF        tii-g=ED
   chop.trees-MSG AUX-NONVISIBLE:PRESENT:3MSG
   "He is chopping trees" (I hear him)

   kiti-g=EF        tii-=ED
   chop.trees-MSG AUX-VISIBLE:PRESENT:3MSG
   "He is chopping trees" (I see him)

   kiti-g=EF        tii-h=D2i
   chop.trees-MSG AUX-INFERRED:PRESENT:3MSG
   "He is chopping trees" (I can't really tell what he is doing)

   kiti-g=EF        tii-y=ED
   chop.trees-MSG AUX-INFERRED:PAST:3MSG
   "He was chopping trees" (I heard him)

   kiti-g=EF        tii-yig=EF
   chop.trees-MSG AUX-HEARSAY:PAST:3MSG
   "They say he was chopping trees"

   kiti-g=EF        tii-hiyi
   chop.trees-MSG AUX-GENERAL.KNOWLEDGE:PAST:3MSG
   "He was chopping trees" (Everybody knows that)

   kiti-g=EF        tii-k=ED
   chop.trees-MSG AUX-GENERAL.KNOWLEDGE:PRESENT:3MSG
   "He is chopping trees" (Everybody knows that)

The samples above are not all exhaustive. There are many many other=20
clitics.

Now imagine a Tuyuca testimony in court.

-kristian- 8)