Legend: Definitions, Terms, <Text>, [IPA], -Tags-, and "Glosses".
The head of a clause must be a non-relativized predicate or ordinal number, so the copula predicate co (Cop) is used when the semantic head is a phrase as well as when the clause is one of identity. Note that the argument phrase determiners determine whether the clause is one of definition or identity (pronominal arguments are automatically definite). When the clause is one of definition, one of the arguments phrases is typically non-referential (~, NR).
| Man$3 "sing"\ "John";$ 3co.f | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Man $ 3 | "sing"-\ | "John"-; $ | 3-co .f |
| man=Def=3A | sing-Aor | John-Nom=Def | 3A-Cop=Fin |
| "John is the man who sang." | |||
| "Fido";$ sz> Dog~ co.f | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| "Fido"-; $ | sz-> | Dog ~ | co .f |
| Fido-Nom=Def | size-GT | dog=NR | Cop=Fin |
| "Fido is a large dog." | |||
However, when an argument phrase is a single unmodified non-referential predicate, the copula isn't needed:
| "Fido";$ Dog.f | |
|---|---|
| "Fido"-; $ | Dog .f |
| Fido-Nom=Def | dog=Fin |
| "Fido is a dog." | |
Relativized forms of the copula predicate co (Cop) are used as free pronouns and may appear, when needed, wherever a phrase may appear. The appropriate pronominal values appear in the copula's Y affix slot.
| 1co$ |
|---|
| 1-co $ |
| 1-Cop=Def |
| (1st person singular) |
Jul23/C6 lacks dedicated roots for selling, buying, and giving. This is because these concepts are based on a generalized notion of possession, which is also lacking. Instead, there are a number of specific relation roots, such as th "Y is responsible for [taking care of] X", be "X is reserved for consumption by Y", and ni "Y have X on or with themselves".
| Man$ Cat& th.f | ||
|---|---|---|
| Man $ | Cat & | th .f |
| man=Def | cat=Ind | have=Fin |
| "The man has a cat." | ||
Giving involves a transfer of the relationship between the donor and the theme from the donor to the recipient. This is accomplished by using a predicate derived from the relationship predicate using the inchoative suffix (.I -Inch). The derived predicates are telic, syntactically trivalent, and can incorporate the slot Z argument, which otherwise must appear as a phrase or pronoun. Note that, since the derivation is based on the resulting state, the recipient remains the slot Y argument while the theme moves from slot X to slot Z and the donor becomes the new slot X argument.
| "child"$ Cat& Man$ th.I.f | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| "child" $ | Cat & | Man $ | th-.I .f |
| child=Def | cat=Ind | man=Def | have1-Inch=Fin |
| "The man gave the child a cat." | |||
For selling and buying (these are the same event), 2 transfer clauses are needed: one where the seller transfers his/her relationship with the merchandise to the buyer and one where the buyer transfers his/her relationship with the compensation to the seller.
| Man$3 "money"& "child"$4 ni.I Cat& 4th.I3.f | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Man $ 3 | "money" & | "child" $ 4 | ni-.I | Cat & | 4-th-.I-3 .f |
| man=Def=3A | money=Ind | child=Def=3B | have3-Inch | cat=Ind | 3B-have1-Inch-3A=Fin |
| "The man sold the child a cat." | |||||
There's also a terminative suffix (.O -Term), which reverses the transfer (e.g. "take" instead of "give"). The inchoative and terminative suffixes can be used for other situations as well as relationship transfers.
Jul23/C6 has no embedded genitive construction, so possession must be translated with a different kind of syntax, specifically an additional background clause.
For some words, such as kinship and body part terms, the possessor is an argument of the possessum, so pronominal affixes are used. This allows the word to remain a relativized predicate within a phrase.
| 3 Age< 2"child" 2See).q | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | Age-< | 2-"child" | 2-See-) .q |
| "3" | age-LT | 2-child | 2-see-Pst=PQ |
| "Did you see your 3 young children?" | |||
However, if the possessor is a phrase (which can't be embedded), a separate clause must be used for possession. The possessum becomes the head of the new clause, with the possessor phrase corresponding to the appropriate argument. A generic predicate appears as the argument in the new clause that would have been relativized and is assigned an index which is referenced in the original clause. If there would have been other words in the possessum's phrase, these words instead modify the generic predicate.
| "woman"$6 3 Age< gn$7 "child" 6See)7.f | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| "woman" $ 6 | 3 | Age-< | gn $ 7 | "child" | 6-See-)-7 .f |
| woman=Def=3D | "3" | age-LT | gn=Def=3E | child | 3D-see-Pst-3E=Fin |
| "The woman saw her 3 young children." | |||||
For other words, both possessor and possessum are arguments of some relationship word, such as th "Y is responsible for [taking care of] X". The relationship word becomes the head of the new clause and the possessor and possessum become its arguments. The possessum is assigned the index which is referenced in the original clause.
| "child":$ Dog$5 th "greyscale"<5.f | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| "child": $ | Dog $ 5 | th | "greyscale"-<-5 .f |
| child-P=Def | dog=Def=3C | have1 | greyscale-LT-3C=Fin |
| "The children's dog is black." | |||
Note that the inverse relationship can be obtained by moving the index assignment to the possessor:
| "child":$5 Dog$ th Age<5.f | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| "child": $ 5 | Dog $ | th | Age-<-5 .f |
| child-P=Def=3C | dog=Def | have1 | age-LT-3C=Fin |
| "The children the dog belongs to are young." | |||
In a contrafactual sentence, both condition and conclusion (i.e. final sequence) represent contrary-to-fact propositions. They're constructed using the hypothetical copula predicate hc (HC). In most cases, the original condition and final clauses become complement clauses whose matrix clauses use hc as head. Its X argument is the usual complement clause suffix ({, CC) while the Y argument is null.
| Man:$ "sing"\ hc{.i "woman":$ "dance"\ hc{.f | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Man-: $ | "sing"-\ | hc-{ .i | "woman"-: $ | "dance"-\ | hc-{ .f |
| man-P=Def | sing-Aor | HC-CC=If | woman-P=Def | dance-Aor | HC-CC=Fin |
| "If the men had sung, the women would've danced." | |||||
However, if the head of the original condition or final clause is the copula (co, Cop), it gets replaced by hc, so no complement clause construction is needed there.
| 2hc1.i 1Run\ hc{.f | ||
|---|---|---|
| 2-hc-1 .i | 1-Run-\ | hc-{ .f |
| 2-HC-1=If | 1-Run-Aor | HC-CC=Fin |
| "If I were you, I would've run." | ||
A satisfactive sentence consists of a satisfactive background clause followed by a conditional sentence, which may be factual or contrafactual and which may have an implied condition instead of an explicit conditional sequence. A satisfactive background clause is one containing the satisfactive suffix (.E, Sat).
| Man$ "weight">.E "chair"$ "break".f | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Man $ | "weight"->-.E | "chair" $ | "break" .f |
| man=Def | weight-GT-Sat | chair=Def | break=Fin |
| "The man's so heavy, the chair broke." | |||
| Man$ "weight">.E "chair"$ "break" hc{.f | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Man $ | "weight"->-.E | "chair" $ | "break" | hc-{ .f |
| man=Def | weight-GT-Sat | chair=Def | break | HC-CC=Fin |
| "The man's so heavy, the chair would've broken." | ||||
page started: 2015.Aug.07 Fri
current date: 2015.Aug.15 Sat
content and form originated by qiihoskeh
Table of Contents