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

The problem is the range. If the modality applies to
just one concept, you can add it as an affix to the
term. But what if the modality applies to a word group
? In algebra, you would use parentheses. If you want
to use parentheses in oral speech, you need an oral
correspondance to them. For ex:

John threw (a stone into the window, I believe)

Suppose opening and closing parentheses would be
pronounced as "parop" and "parclo". It would give:

John threw parop a stone into the window parclo
mybelief

(You could also try using tones).

And what if imbricated parentheses ?

Also the modality could apply to an atomic conceptual
part of a concept. For ex, "cock" contains 2 atomic
concepts: the kind of bird + "male". What if you
wanted to say "I see a cock, or maybe a hen" (but
anyway, this kind of bird, be it male or female) ?

This is not only about modality, but also about
negation, or intensity, for ex.

All probably possible in a computerized language, but
hardly in an everyday one.

--- Henrik Theiling <theiling@...> wrote:
> 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

=====
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