Re: THEORY: 'true' nature of nouns vs. 'illusionary' nature

This rejoins my concern about the range of a modality.

John threw a stone into the window. (no modality)

I believe that (John threw a stone into the window)
(modality applying to the whole predicate)

I believe that (it was John) who threw a stone into
the window (modality applying only to "John")

John threw (what I believe was a stone) into the
window (modality applying only to "stone")

John threw a stone into (the window, I believe)
(modality applying only to "window")

John threw (a stone, I believe) into (the window, I'm
afraid): two different modalities, the 1st applying to
"stone", the 2nd to "window")

etc.

So in theory we could come to something like:
(John-MOD threw-MOD a_stone-MOD into-MOD
the-window_MOD)-MOD

or maybe even worse, if more complex nuances :-)

This is a problem, and I have no real solution yet.
I'm considering.

--- David Peterson <ThatBlueCat@...> wrote:
> Dan (?) wrote:
>
> << Well I decided to incorporate a feature in Tech
> where a noun can be marked
> to indicate that something is either really what it
> appears to be, or that
> it only has the appearance of being that but isn't
> necessary inherently what
> it claims to be. The suffix -i is roughly translated
> into English as the
> suffix '-like' or the prepositioned 'so-called', but
> it doesn't always have
> a negative meaning. I'm wondering if there's a
> natlang that has this
> feature.>>
>
> Previously, I had thought that this kind of an idea
> (that is, a fake or
> illegitimate thing) was something that could only
> exist in an industrialized
> culture (I don't know why.   I know nothing about
> evolution or anthropology or
> achaeology or history or anything.  This is just
> something I thought).   So I was
> rather surprised (and, again, others with more
> knowledge in the areas I
> specified [or ones I didn't think to include] might
> not have been) to find that
> there's a suffix for just this in the Eskimo
> languages I'm studying.   It's an
> inflectional suffix you attach to a noun to indicate
> that that noun is: (a) a fake
> or facsimile version of the noun; (b) a somehow
> less-legitimate form of the
> noun; or (c) something that looks like the noun, but
> isn't really the noun
> (this is kind of like (a)).   A very useful suffix
> and concept, IMO.
>
> -David

=====
Philippe Caquant

"High thoughts must have high language." (Aristophanes, Frogs)


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

Reply