[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 6:15 PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@hidden.email> wrote: > Jorge Llambías, On 25/08/2012 21:56: > > On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 4:13 PM, And Rosta<and.rosta@hidden.email> wrote: > >> Jorge Llambías, On 25/08/2012 01:04: > >>> > >>> 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? > > > > Is it meaningful, for example, to negate such a predicate? The grammar > > allows any predicate to be negated, but I'm not sure what it would > > mean to say "I don't hereby command you to do so and so"? Or "I hereby > > could command you to do so and so". > > Good point! Can we appeal to pragmatics? That's what I meant by complicating the rules for when it's appropriate to use it. :) > > I think "Is it lunchtime yet, because I'm getting hungry" could be > > analysed as two statements: > > > > (1) I hereby ask whether it is lunchtime yet. > > (2) I hereby assert that the reason I ask whether it is lunchtime yet > > is because I'm getting hungry. > > > > We mangle both into one utterance so as to not have to repeat the > > portion that is common to both statements, but logically they don't > > really belong in the same statement if I'm right that only one > > illocutionary force per statement is allowed. > > How about "hello again"? That doesn't seem to me to involve an > illocutionary assertion in addition to an illocutionary salutation. I would say that would be a single statement: "I hereby express greetings to you again", "I hereby re-express greetings to you". I don't think the illocutionary there needs to be within the scope of again. > Furthermore, not all illocutionaries are sentence-level. At a > lexical/phrasal level are "fucking", "surprisingly", and so on. OK. Perhaps those deserve a separate treatment, similar to that of noi-clauses or parentheticals. > Quantifiers are not the only things outside the scope of the > illocutionary. So are conventional implicatures (e.g. the contrast bit of > _but_). All right, but we don't have "but" in Xorban yet. mu'o mi'e xorxes