From d2da853b9eb430679e7238b93996f8e4651a39c1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: uakci Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2020 04:55:30 +0100 Subject: fixed encoding --- 2004-en-alt/ithkuil-ch9-syntax.html | 168 ++++++++++++++++++------------------ 1 file changed, 84 insertions(+), 84 deletions(-) mode change 100755 => 100644 2004-en-alt/ithkuil-ch9-syntax.html (limited to '2004-en-alt/ithkuil-ch9-syntax.html') diff --git a/2004-en-alt/ithkuil-ch9-syntax.html b/2004-en-alt/ithkuil-ch9-syntax.html old mode 100755 new mode 100644 index 239b2b5..95f6d7f --- a/2004-en-alt/ithkuil-ch9-syntax.html +++ b/2004-en-alt/ithkuil-ch9-syntax.html @@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ 9.3 Morpho-Semantic Considerations - 9.4 The “Carrier” + 9.4 The “Carrier” Root @@ -107,7 +107,7 @@
  • Pragmatic role: This refers to the function of a word or phrase in relation to its predicate or the rest of the sentence in terms - of whether and how it represents “given” versus “new” + of whether and how it represents “given” versus “new” information, i.e., whether or not the word or phrase represents background information already known to the addressee, or whether it represents new information previously unknown to the addressee. Three such roles or relations @@ -119,11 +119,11 @@ refers to whatever information in a sentence is new to the addressee, (i.e., not previously known), and has been discussed in detail in Sec. 3.5. To illustrate these concepts, consider the sentence I can see - why Mary’s angry, but what about Bill? (i.e., What happened + why Mary’s angry, but what about Bill? (i.e., What happened to make Bill angry, too?). In the hypothetical answer Bill (or - He) is angry because he lost his keys, ‘Bill’ (or ‘he’) - is the topic, ‘is angry because he lost his keys’ is the comment, - and ‘he lost his keys’ is the focus.
    + He) is angry because he lost his keys, ‘Bill’ (or ‘he’) + is the topic, ‘is angry because he lost his keys’ is the comment, + and ‘he lost his keys’ is the focus.
  • Grammatical (or syntactical) relations: the arbitrary word-ordering rules of a language, irrespective @@ -141,7 +141,7 @@ syntax (one exception is the strong tendency for placing wh- question words in sentence-initial position in specialized questions, even if they represent a direct object, e.g., What have you done? or Who[m] are they talking - about?), however, such roles do tend to be marked “supra-segmentally” + about?), however, such roles do tend to be marked “supra-segmentally” by inflection of vocal pitch and tone of voice.

    We have already seen the extreme to which Ithkuil marks semantic roles morphologically as opposed to syntactically. And since grammatial relations @@ -164,7 +164,7 @@

    The highly inflected nature of Ithkuil morphology allows the order of words within a sentence to be quite flexible. Nevertheless, two neutral - or “default” patterns exist, one for main clauses, the other for + or “default” patterns exist, one for main clauses, the other for case frames.


    9.1.1 Word Order Within Main Clauses

    @@ -192,7 +192,7 @@ cases, followed by nouns in non-transrelative cases. The last part of the clause consists of the verb in final position preceded by any aspectual adjunct, conflation (or valence) adjunct, and combination or affixual adjunct, in that order. As - for “higher-” versus “lower-” order transrelative nouns, + for “higher-” versus “lower-” order transrelative nouns, this refers to the hierarchy or sequence of transrelative cases in which certain cases take precedence over others. This hierarchy is as follows:

    ERGATIVE @@ -225,7 +225,7 @@ adjuncts, then any secondary nouns, followed by any transrelative nouns with the highest-order transrelative noun or any personal reference adjunct in final position within the case-frame. Additionally, the last noun within the case-frame - will usually take one of the –V1’ + will usually take one of the –V1’ suffixes (see Sec. 7.7.13) signifying the end of the case-frame unless this is clear without the suffix (e.g., because the case-frame is in sentence-final position).

    @@ -241,7 +241,7 @@
    • Nouns in Attributive, Associative and Adverbial cases (see Secs. 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5) - which are dependent on, or in apposition to a “head” noun, must + which are dependent on, or in apposition to a “head” noun, must immediately precede or follow that head noun, unless the relationship between the two nouns is readily ascertainable without the two being in apposition.
      • @@ -253,7 +253,7 @@
    • A case-frame cannot be broken apart into segments within a main sentence, i.e., the case-frame must constitute a single cohesive clause and not contain - elements of the main clause within it. It is possible to “nest” + elements of the main clause within it. It is possible to “nest” a second case-frame within a case-frame, similar to the way in which subordinate or relative clauses can be nested in English and other Western languages, e.g., [Despite owning a Picasso [that comes from his Blue period] [of @@ -271,10 +271,10 @@ was described in Sec. 1.4.5, words of six syllables or more are generally undesirable, therefore any formative with numerous affixes is potentially subject to having several of its morphemes - redistributed to adjuncts. As an example, the word umreiquçîîmšën - ‘series of bombs’ can separate out two of its four suffixes into - a separate word çu’’î - to give the form çu’’î_umreiqîmšën + redistributed to adjuncts. As an example, the word umreiquçßßmĆĄĂ«n + ‘series of bombs’ can separate out two of its four suffixes into + a separate word çu’’ü + to give the form çu’’ü_umreiqĂźmĆĄĂ«n whose morphological structure is .

      When ordering such phonaesthetically-induced adjuncts, it is important that they can be easily associated with the formative to which they @@ -287,25 +287,25 @@ understanding of what is being described, i.e., the order of the words themselves reflects information about how we are to understand the utterance. Such a phenomenon is known as iconicity. In English and other Western languages, - the most common way in which iconicity is manifested is what is termed “sequential - order iconicity,” the idea that the actual sequential order of words in + the most common way in which iconicity is manifested is what is termed “sequential + order iconicity,” the idea that the actual sequential order of words in a phrase or sentence reflects the sequential order of the events they describe. - For example, the phrases ‘eye it, try it, buy it,’ ‘I came, - I saw, I conquered,’ or ‘dine and dash’ describe sequential + For example, the phrases ‘eye it, try it, buy it,’ ‘I came, + I saw, I conquered,’ or ‘dine and dash’ describe sequential events where the sequence of the words reflect the sequence of the events. What is most important is that re-ordering of the words either changes the meaning - of the phrase or leads to semantic nonsense, e.g., ‘buy it, eye it, try - it’ implies that a different sequence of events actually takes place than - ‘eye it, try it, buy it.’ This can be more dramatically illustrated + of the phrase or leads to semantic nonsense, e.g., ‘buy it, eye it, try + it’ implies that a different sequence of events actually takes place than + ‘eye it, try it, buy it.’ This can be more dramatically illustrated with the following pair of sentences.

      1) Jane got married and had a baby.
      2) Jane had a baby and got married.

      -

      In English, the ambiguous word ‘and’ is interpreted - as connecting a sequence of events, i.e., ‘and’ is interpreted to - mean sequential ‘then’ (= ‘and following that,’ ‘then - next’ or ‘then later’). As a result, the meanings of the two +

      In English, the ambiguous word ‘and’ is interpreted + as connecting a sequence of events, i.e., ‘and’ is interpreted to + mean sequential ‘then’ (= ‘and following that,’ ‘then + next’ or ‘then later’). As a result, the meanings of the two sentences imply very different social interpretations about Jane.

      Besides the reflection of sequential order, other types of word-order iconicity are possible. For example, compare the subtle difference @@ -319,8 +319,8 @@ painted before. In the second sentence, not only do we know what color the fence had been, but also that it was not previously unpainted, however, we do not necessarily know what its new color is. This sort of iconicity is used to convey - a resultative state of affairs, i.e., by placing the adjective ‘white’ - after the word ‘fence’ (seemingly in violation of the usual adjective-before-noun + a resultative state of affairs, i.e., by placing the adjective ‘white’ + after the word ‘fence’ (seemingly in violation of the usual adjective-before-noun word order used in English), we describe a resulting state of affairs.

      Yet another type of word-order iconicity is displayed in comparing the following two sentences.

      @@ -329,21 +329,21 @@ 6) Loretta gave a wedding gift to Sue.

      Most grammar textbooks would state that these two sentences - are semantically equivalent, the first employing a “ditransitive” - pattern (i.e., juxtaposing an indirect object ‘Sue’ with a direct - object ‘wedding gift’), while the second uses a “complement” + are semantically equivalent, the first employing a “ditransitive” + pattern (i.e., juxtaposing an indirect object ‘Sue’ with a direct + object ‘wedding gift’), while the second uses a “complement” pattern in which the indirect object follows the direct object and is changed - to a prepositional phrase using ‘to.’ However, there is a subtle + to a prepositional phrase using ‘to.’ However, there is a subtle semantic distinction between the two sentences. The first strongly implies that the wedding gift is for Sue, i.e., Sue is the bride and intended recipient. The second sentence, however, invites the possibility that Sue is only a temporary or circumstantial goal for the act of giving, but not the bride and intended recipient. For example, if Sue is merely a guest at the wedding and Loretta - needed Sue’s help carrying an armload of wedding gifts, she might give + needed Sue’s help carrying an armload of wedding gifts, she might give a wedding gift to Sue, but that does not mean she would give Sue a wedding gift. This type of iconicity distinguishing a recipient from a directional - goal is an example of what is termed “distance iconicity,” because - the two linked words are made more “distant” from each other in + goal is an example of what is termed “distance iconicity,” because + the two linked words are made more “distant” from each other in the sentence as a reflection of their more circumstantial association.

      Ithkuil does not display iconicity. While the order of words in an Ithkuil phrase or sentence may coincidentally reflect a temporal or causative @@ -352,21 +352,21 @@ resulting states, and the distinction of recipients from directional goals, no iconicity patterns are required.

      For example, we saw in sentences (1) and (2) above how English - ‘and’ can be used to convey not just mere coordination, but also + ‘and’ can be used to convey not just mere coordination, but also a sequencing function. In Sections 7.7.3 and 7.7.4, we saw that Ithkuil has no less than thirty-six suffixes (four suffix categories, each with nine different degrees) which convey various coordinative and sequencing patterns with great specificity. Thus, Ithkuil has no morpheme directly equivalent - to the ambiguous English word ‘and.’ There is an affix corresponding - to ‘and’ in its use as a mere additive listing device (e.g., ‘pears - and apples and bananas’), another corresponding to its use as an indicator - of simultaneity (e.g., ‘I clenched my fists and scowled’), another - corresponding to its use as an indicator of additional information (e.g., ‘The - clown likes children and loves to eat’), another to its use as an indicator - of parallel description or activity (e.g., ‘We went dancing and so did - they’), and yet another as a temporal sequencing indicator (e.g., ‘I - went to the window and looked out’).

      + to the ambiguous English word ‘and.’ There is an affix corresponding + to ‘and’ in its use as a mere additive listing device (e.g., ‘pears + and apples and bananas’), another corresponding to its use as an indicator + of simultaneity (e.g., ‘I clenched my fists and scowled’), another + corresponding to its use as an indicator of additional information (e.g., ‘The + clown likes children and loves to eat’), another to its use as an indicator + of parallel description or activity (e.g., ‘We went dancing and so did + they’), and yet another as a temporal sequencing indicator (e.g., ‘I + went to the window and looked out’).

       

      @@ -383,7 +383,7 @@ in Ithkuil, word order changes are not necessary to distinguish new from background information in a sentence. Comparison between the word-order based system of English and the morphology based system of Ithkuil is analyzed in Sec. 9.2.1 - below. Additionally, while Ithkuil’s system for indicating topics and + below. Additionally, while Ithkuil’s system for indicating topics and semantic focus does not require changes in word order per se, it does allow for significant word deletion, creating abbreviated sentences which, in effect, modify the default word order of a sentence. Such word deletion is analyzed @@ -406,10 +406,10 @@ then going home. The difference between them is one of focus and viewpoint. In the first two sentences, going home has semantic focus, as that is the new information being conveyed, while in the latter two sentences it is shopping - that has focus. The first and third sentence have a “prospective” + that has focus. The first and third sentence have a “prospective” viewpoint in that the sentence conveys the events in the same sequence in which they occurred, looking upon the events from the viewpoint of the one that occurred - first. However, the second and fourth sentences have a “retrospective” + first. However, the second and fourth sentences have a “retrospective” viewpoint, conveying the two events in a reverse order from how they occurred, looking back on the events from the viewpoint of the event which occurred last.

      In Ithkuil, the distinction in focus and viewpoint in these @@ -428,9 +428,9 @@ carrying semantic focus need be spoken. Similarly, the topicalization suffix in conjunction with the INTERROGATIVE illocution affix, allows for abbreviated inquiries within a known contextual - discourse, similar to such abbreviated sentences in English, e.g., ‘and - Bill?’ in lieu of the full sentence ‘Comment on how this applies - to Bill.’

      + discourse, similar to such abbreviated sentences in English, e.g., ‘and + Bill?’ in lieu of the full sentence ‘Comment on how this applies + to Bill.’

       

      @@ -455,7 +455,7 @@ 2) That path descends steeply into the canyon.

      Both of these sentences are describing the same property of - the path — its steepness. The distinction in the sentences comes from + the path — its steepness. The distinction in the sentences comes from the point of view being reflected by the speaker. In sentence (1) the implied point of view is from the bottom of the canyon upward, while in sentence (2) the viewpoint is from the top of the canyon downward. What is important is that, @@ -478,7 +478,7 @@

      Similarly, care must be made, when comparing Ithkuil sentence structure with other languages, to note that Ithkuil grammar allows for a more overt reflection of the underlying semantic roles inherent in a given sentence. - As a result, sentence structures in Western languages which “mask” + As a result, sentence structures in Western languages which “mask” potentially anomalous semantic structures are avoided in Ithkuil. For example, compare the following pairs of sentences.

      @@ -498,22 +498,22 @@

      The syntactical patterns of these two pairs of sentences are identical, yet the word-order in sentence (4b) is ungrammatical (as indicated by the asterisk), while the same word-order in sentence (3b) presents no problem. - The underlying reason for the difference is one of semantic role. While ‘analysts’ - can function in the role of Recipients, ‘stains’ cannot (they are + The underlying reason for the difference is one of semantic role. While ‘analysts’ + can function in the role of Recipients, ‘stains’ cannot (they are merely directional Goals, i.e., where the solvent gets applied). Cognitively, - stains cannot “possess” a solvent the way analysts can “possess” + stains cannot “possess” a solvent the way analysts can “possess” a report. In Ithkuil, the semantic roles would be clearly defined by the case-markings of the participants. Therefore, syntactically inconsistent pairs such as (3b) and (4b) do not occur.

      -

      Sometimes, rather than semantic role, it is a participant’s +

      Sometimes, rather than semantic role, it is a participant’s relationship to an underlying clause that presents the problem. For example, - He’s a tall president means ‘He’s a president who - is tall.’ So why doesn’t He’s a likely president - mean ‘*He’s a president who is likely’? The reason is that, - while ‘tall’ describes its adjacent referent ‘president,’ - ‘likely’ does not describe its adjacent referent. Rather, ‘likely’ + He’s a tall president means ‘He’s a president who + is tall.’ So why doesn’t He’s a likely president + mean ‘*He’s a president who is likely’? The reason is that, + while ‘tall’ describes its adjacent referent ‘president,’ + ‘likely’ does not describe its adjacent referent. Rather, ‘likely’ describes an underlying process in which that referent is or will be engaged, - i.e., ‘running for president.’ Therefore, while these two sentences + i.e., ‘running for president.’ Therefore, while these two sentences are morpho-syntactically identical in English, their Ithkuil translations are quite different from one another morpho-syntactically:

      @@ -530,11 +530,11 @@

      9.3.3 Negation

      Negation is another morpho-semantic area where translation from English or other Western languages can be tricky. Consider the English - sentence Shelly doesn’t think they like her cooking. Note this + sentence Shelly doesn’t think they like her cooking. Note this sentence does not mean what a literal word-for-word analysis implies, i.e., - ‘That they like her cooking is not something that Shelly is thinking.’ - Rather, the correct meaning is ‘Shelly thinks that they don’t like - her cooking.’ Ithkuil is very precise in specifying exactly what components + ‘That they like her cooking is not something that Shelly is thinking.’ + Rather, the correct meaning is ‘Shelly thinks that they don’t like + her cooking.’ Ithkuil is very precise in specifying exactly what components of a sentence are to be negated. Use of the four affirmation/negation affixes from Sec. 7.7.9 () in conjunction with a formative carries very specific information as to what @@ -542,14 +542,14 @@ what degree. Using these four affixes alone, Ithkuil can distinguish between the following four sentences without any syntactic rearrangement of the words:

      -

      I don’t want to begin singing.

      -

      I’m beginning to not want to sing.

      +

      I don’t want to begin singing.

      +

      I’m beginning to not want to sing.

      I want to not begin singing.

      -

      I’m beginning to want to not sing.

      +

      I’m beginning to want to not sing.

      Thus when translating negative sentences into Ithkuil, care - must be taken to not syntactically “rearrange” a sentence as with - Shelly doesn’t think they like her cooking. Additionally, Ithkuil + must be taken to not syntactically “rearrange” a sentence as with + Shelly doesn’t think they like her cooking. Additionally, Ithkuil makes a morpho-semantic distinction not found in Western languages: the difference between absolute negation and relative negation. Absolute negation implies that the non-existence or non-occurrence of an entity, @@ -558,16 +558,16 @@ is illustrated in the two sentences below:



      - The girl doesn’t sing [because she can’t, i.e., she is + The girl doesn’t sing [because she can’t, i.e., she is mute].


      .
      - The girl doesn’t sing [even though she can, i.e., she chooses + The girl doesn’t sing [even though she can, i.e., she chooses not to].

       

      -

      9.4 THE “CARRIER” +

      9.4 THE “CARRIER” ROOT
      @@ -576,14 +576,14 @@ nouns such as personal and place names, as well as non-Ithkuil words from other languages are by nature morpho-phonologically incompatible with such as system. Nevertheless, such words can be declined or conjugated like any other Ithkuil - formative by means of the “carrier” root k-r. + formative by means of the “carrier” root k-r. In addition to this use, the carrier root is employed in certain other contexts as well, as described below.


      9.4.1 Words that Cannot Take Affixes or Be Mutated

      The six primary stems of the carrier root (kar, - kur, kir and their Form II counterparts kâr, - kûr, kîr) are respectively associated with animate + kur, kir and their Form II counterparts kĂąr, + kƱr, kĂźr) are respectively associated with animate beings (the two complementary derivatives being humans versus non-humans or figuratively/metaphorically animate entities); inanimate entities (the two complementary derivatives being objectively concrete entities versus subjective entities such @@ -600,11 +600,11 @@

      9.4.2 Emphasizing or Highlighting a Particular Category

      Another use of the carrier root is to emphasize or topicalize a particular affix or grammatical element associated with a word. For example, - in English we can say ‘a big house’ with extra intonation - on the word ‘big’ to emphasize that word. To accomplish such emphasis + in English we can say ‘a big house’ with extra intonation + on the word ‘big’ to emphasize that word. To accomplish such emphasis in Ithkuil, the carrier root is used with the augmentative suffix in conjunction - with the noun ‘house’ as opposed to simply using the augmentative - suffix on the stem for ‘house.’ No change in vocal pitch or intonation + with the noun ‘house’ as opposed to simply using the augmentative + suffix on the stem for ‘house.’ No change in vocal pitch or intonation is required, as the grammatically unnecessary use of the carrier root serves to accomplish the required emphasis. Any morphological category manifested by a carrier root rather than an adjunct or mutation serves to emphasize that category. @@ -676,7 +676,7 @@
      -©2004-2009 by John Quijada. You may copy or excerpt any portion +©2004-2009 by John Quijada. You may copy or excerpt any portion of the contents of this website provided you give full attribution to the author and this website. -- cgit v1.2.3