Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

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

From:Henrik Theiling <theiling@...>
Date:Wednesday, April 14, 2004, 15:56
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

Philippe Caquant <herodote92@...>