[YG Conlang Archives] > [Latejami group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Linvi Charles wrote: >>Well, the clause isn't an entity which uses the hammer for an >>unspecified purpose, so my mind rejects that parsing. > > However, when "with" takes the event as its first argument, the result is > that the sentence conveys that the the agent used the hammer specifically to > break the window. Perhaps. I'm not sure about it, but I have to think more about it. >>I saw Rick Morneau broke his silence on the Conlang-L. Have you asked >>him about these matters? Or have you reach any conclusions since you >>wrote your last mail? > > I have not. I did not see his posts, either. He wrote in the thread 'mispronunciation' of "engelang" (was: Introduction) >>(I haven't asked him, since I thought I may reread the monograph until >>it is exhausted first, there are still things I understand when >>rereading that I didn't understand before.) > > Until it is exhausted? Yes. It seems a bit nonchalant to ask questions about things that are already answered in the documentation, and I still find more I understand when rereading the monograph. Linvi Charles wrote: > I do not think that an instrument introducer/relational inherently describes > an unspecified purpose. Consider the following: > > 1. The man using the hammer broke the window. > 2. The man broke the window using the hammer. > > The first sentence does not imply that the hammer was used in the act, > specifically. There is no semantic information that may prove whether or > not the hammer was used in the act. Yes. The first sentence would probably use an open adjective in Latejami, while the second would use a normal adverb. > However, because the second construction is readily available, the first > sentence appears to imply that the hammer was probably not used in the act. Yes, in English. > Consider the second sentence. Why exactly does it convey the message that > the hammer was used to break the window specifically whereas the first does > not convey a specific use? 3. The man broke the window using the umbrella. Here he may have used the umbrella to hid from the rain, but he used the umbrella at the same time as he broke the window. If "using" had been an open adjective, then he might have broken the window without the umbrella, where "using the umbrella" is used to identify the man in question. But with an adverb he still might have been using the umbrella for something else than braking the window. So you need a "non-linking" structure, or a transrelative morpheme as in my conlang, to express that the umbrella was an instrument in performing the act itself. > Why does its location in the sentence cause the change in meaning? > I postulate that the cause can be simplified to which > clauses or words represent the verb's arguments. > > 1. [(The man) using (the hammer)] broke [the window]. > 2. ((The man) broke (the window)) using (the hammer). > > In the first sentence, the first and the second argument of "using" is "the > man" and "the hammer", respectively. Therefore, the man was using the > hammer in an unspecified manner while he broke the window. What about "The man using the hammer over there broke the window you saw yesterday"? So the using of the hammer doesn't need to be concurrent with the braking of the window. And what about "The man broke the window using the umbrella"? > He may have used the hammer to break the window, or he may have used the > hammer for something else. In the second sentence, the first and the second > argument of "using" is "the man broke the window" and "the hammer", > respectively. This is the only reasonable explanation that I am able to form. > > I believe that this explanation makes sense as long as you do not consider > an argument to be an entity, necessarily. Instead, the entire event (the > breaking of a window) was accomplished with the use of a hammer. This > appears to imply that the agent used the hammer, specifically, because the > window is only the patient (rather than being both the agent and the > patient) and therefore could not have caused its own change of state with an > instrument. I believe that this explanation works in all of the > "transrelative" scenarios. Linvi Charles wrote: > I used the word "using" rather than the word "with", because the word "with" > appears to change its semantics between those two sentences: > > 1. The man with the hammer broke the window. > 2. The man broke the window with the hammer. > > The second implies that the hammer was being used as an instrument. The > first implies that the hammer simply accompanied the man during his > destruction of the window. Agree. Linvi Charles wrote: > I was just thinking about the relational "better than": > > 1. He is better than me at soccer. > > Is "He" the patient while "me" is the focus? Would "at soccer" be > introduced with another verb? What sort of verb could introduce that > argument? This confused me, because it almost seemed like both "me" and "at > soccer" would be focuses of the verb In Latejami as well as my own conlang, "than/as" is a conjunction joining the two entities compared, and "more" modify the quality compared. goodat((he) than (me)[subject], soccer[object], more[adverb]) I think it's something like that. I don't know how to express "be good at soccer", but the rest should be like that in Latejami. So "good at" is the verb "he than me" is the patient, "soccer" is the focus, and "more" is an adverb modifying the verb. My attempt for Latejami: jenkepunza divi zuntesye bavi lucudwejepi kejope or maybe it should be jenkepunza kejopay divi zuntesye bavi lucudwejepi ? Is there some difference between them? -- Veoler