[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
[Here's a response I'd written in draft and am sending now bcs I mightn't have time to revisit it soon.] Jorge Llamb�as, On 20/09/2012 23:06:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 6:46 AM, And Rosta<and.rosta@hidden.email> wrote:Jorge Llamb�as, On 20/09/2012 02:45:I think the two readings are not related to where the "na" is respect to Napoleon, but rather where you put the tense:Yes, I agree, but if "la bcda na fgha" is necessarily equivalent to "na la bcda fgha", then "la bcda na fgha" can be equivalent only to "la bcda na [at some point in time:] fgha" and not to "la bcda [at some point in time:] na fgha",I don't see why, but maybe I don't understand what you mean by "can be equivalent to". It can be interpreted that way, it doesn't have to be interpreted that way, so I'm not saying it is necessarily equivalent to that. "la bcda na fgha" makes no reference to any time. It doesn't say whether this is supposed to hold at some unspecified time, at all times, at the time in question, or anything like that. But the speaker may very well mean for it to be understood that way.
Now that I've thought about it some more, I've come round to -- when was it ever otherwise? -- agreeing with you. See below.
All of these interpretations of "la bcda na fgha" (among others) are possible: (1) la bcda na [si smi fi] fgha = la bcda [ri smi] na [fi] fgha (2) la bcda na [ri smi fi] fgha = la bcda [si smi] na [fi] fgha
This one seems pretty stretched to me. Stretched beyond what seems reasonable. Can you think of an example to persuade me?
(3) la bcda na [li di smi fi] fgha = la bcda [li di smi] na [fi] fgha
Are you talking about logical forms or about conversational implicatures? I don't think you can seriously be advocating ambiguity, so you must be talking about conversational implicatures, but if so, why should we waste our time discussing conversational implicatures? The designed element of the language rightly stops at logical form; conversational implicature is extrinsic to language.
"na la bcda fgha" has all of those available as well: (1) na la bcda [si smi fi] fgha = [ri smi] na la bcda [fi] fgha (2) na la bcda [ri smi fi] fgha = [si smi] na la bcda [fi] fgha
I'd take a bit of persuading to accept this.
(3) na la bcda [li di smi fi] fgha = [li di smi] na la bcda [fi] fghaand so for the latter I was suggesting "la bcda si smi fi na fgha", which still seems to me the best available solution.Yes, that works to specify reading (2).
It doesn't look like that to me.
What I don't understand is why you say that the form without any f- can only have reading (1).
For clarity, the two readings I had in mind are these: A. la bcda na si smi fi fgha B. la bcda si smi fi na fgha If "la bcda [si smi] na [fi] fgha" is a valid interpretation, then it is simply not true that "la bcda na fgha" is necessarily equivalent to "na la bcde fgha", "na la bcda [si smi fi] fgha". Rather, that equivalence holds only for certain interpretations, and fails for other interpretations. I recognize that your response will be that there is an equivalence of logical forms only, and that it is not the case that a given interpretation of "la bcda na fgha" is necessarily equivalent to "na la bcda fgha" -- that's a reasonable position to take. I guess the outstanding question in my mind is: Is "la bcda na fgha" ambiguous between A & B, or does it somehow have a semantics that neutralizes the distinction between A & B? Ambiguity is not acceptable. But if there genuinely is some kind of meaning that neutralizes the distinction between A & B then it is right that that is the meaning of "la bcda na fgha". After further thought, it seems that the A/B distinction is illusory and does indeed instead depend on the introduction of tense.
If "la bcda na fgha" were ambiguous wrt the location of implicit tense (-- which would not be a felicitous ambiguity) then it couldn't be inherently equivalet to "na la bcda fgha".But there is no implicit "at some point in time", just as there is no implicit "according to the rules of some country", or any implicit "at some church", or anything else which could be added at different points of "Napoleon wasn't married to Josephine" to get analogous ambiguities. If it's not clear what time you are talking about, there's no reason you have to assume either "at some time" or "at every time". If the sentence is ambiguous it's only because the speaker didn't give all the specifications they needed to give. The grammar shouldn't force any implicit tense.
I'm not advocating implicit tense, tho I had mistaken you to be talking of implicit tense. Rather, I was trying to understand the meaning of "na"/"jtf". It seems to me, "la bcda fgha" is equivalent to "si smi fi la bcda fgha", while "na la bcda fgha" is equivalent to "0%-i smi (ti) fi la bcda fgha". In this case, the distinction between (A) and (B) translates into the following (module the irrelevant issue of whether "la bcda" can be extracted out of irrealis clauses): A. la bcda na si smi fi fgha la bcda 0%-u smu (tu) fu si smi fi fgha B. la bcda si smi fi na fgha la bcda su smu fu 0%-i smi (ti) fi fgha I guess these are not actually distinct. They're both equivalent to C. la bcda na si smi fi fgha la bcda so smo fo 0%-u smu (tu) fu si smi fi fgha --And.