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

Hi!

Philippe Caquant <herodote92@...> writes:
> This rejoins my concern about the range of a modality.
>
> John threw a stone into the window. (no modality)
>
>...interesting stuff removed...
>
> 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.
My new S7 will allow/force you to add evidence/mood particles to each
and every sub-clause.  Predicates that have valence 0 do not enforce
you to add such a particle to the predication they build, but I'm
considering allowing it anyway if the speaker wants to.  Any
predication that consists of a predicate and one or more arguments
currently forces the speaker to use such a particle.

The first sentence above is impossible to express in S7, since it is a
complex predication therefore requiring a evidence/mood particle.

Another extension I will probably borrow from Inuit-Aleut, which S7 is
influenced by, will be the -something-like suffix.  This is additional
to the evidence/mood thingies.

**Henrik

Reply