[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Jorge Llamb�as, On 25/08/2012 01:04:
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 9:15 AM, And Rosta<and.rosta@hidden.email> wrote:Jorge Llamb�as, On 24/08/2012 03:37:Yes, I was thinking along those lines, but if I'm not mistaken illocutionary operators are not like ordinary unary operators that can be combined with other operators. Illocutionary operators act on a sentence and the result can't be acted on again.I think you're mistaken. Two sorts of case where illoc operator isn't sentence root: First: "Is it lunchtime yet, because I'm getting hungry" = "Because I'm getting hungry I ask..."Hmm... OK, then I guess this makes the syntactic rules simpler, but the rules for when it's appropriate to use an illocutionary operator somewhat more complicated.
What are examples of complications? Why not just put illocutionaries in the class of predicates?
"Don't make so much noise, for I'm trying to read" = "Because I'm trying to read, I command... & I think I'd argue that _for_ modifies only illocutionary operators.Question from a non-native speaker: Can't you say "I told them not to make so much noise, for I was trying to read."
Well observed as always! I withdraw my argument, because I agree that "for I was trying to read" modifies "told" rather than "I hereby state" (the illocutionary element). One can't say "It's not true that I told them not to make so much noise, for I was trying to read.", because _for_ is restricted to main clauses, i.e. clauses containing an illocutionary, but you've shown me to be wrong in my idea that this restriction is because _for_ modifies only illocutionaries. --And.