600
edits
Underfilling: Difference between revisions
more
(initial article) |
(more) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
In logic or mathematics, there's no sensible way to "underfill" a relation. "Twelve is divisible by three" makes sense, but "Twelve is divisible" does not. So when we turn "I hear it" into "I hear", what is really going on? | In logic or mathematics, there's no sensible way to "underfill" a relation. "Twelve is divisible by three" makes sense, but "Twelve is divisible" does not. So when we turn "I hear it" into "I hear", what is really going on? | ||
== Verb families == | == Theories of underfilling == | ||
=== Verb families === | |||
One explanation is that, for example, {{t|huogaı}} is actually a "verb family" of three verbs in a trenchcoat: | One explanation is that, for example, {{t|huogaı}} is actually a "verb family" of three verbs in a trenchcoat: | ||
| Line 20: | Line 21: | ||
This is tidy, but it doesn't gives us a predictable rule for what the intransitive version of a transitive verb means. In English, "I know" means "I know '''it'''" but "I eat" means "I eat '''something'''". Should this distinction be mindlessly carried over into Toaq if we define {{t|dua}}<sub>1</sub> and {{t|chuq}}<sub>1</sub> as above? | This is tidy, but it doesn't gives us a predictable rule for what the intransitive version of a transitive verb means. In English, "I know" means "I know '''it'''" but "I eat" means "I eat '''something'''". Should this distinction be mindlessly carried over into Toaq if we define {{t|dua}}<sub>1</sub> and {{t|chuq}}<sub>1</sub> as above? | ||
== Implicit arguments == | === Implicit arguments === | ||
Another explanation is that when we underfill {{t|huogaı}}, the remaining slots are filled with some implicit argument. But which? All of {{t|sá raı}}, {{t|báq raı}}, {{t|ké raı}}, and a "vague definite reference" / pronoun seem to make sense in different situations. | Another explanation is that when we underfill {{t|huogaı}}, the remaining slots are filled with some implicit argument. But which? All of {{t|sá raı}}, {{t|báq raı}}, {{t|ké raı}}, and a "vague definite reference" / pronoun seem to make sense in different situations. | ||
== Disallowing underfilling == | === Disallowing underfilling === | ||
An extreme idea is to ban sentences like {{t|Huogaı jí}}, forcing the speaker to say something explicit and specific like {{t|Huogaı jí sá}} or {{t|Huogaı jí hóq}}. This is semantically watertight but annoying. | An extreme idea is to ban sentences like {{t|Huogaı jí}}, forcing the speaker to say something explicit and specific like {{t|Huogaı jí sá}} or {{t|Huogaı jí hóq}}. This is semantically watertight but annoying. | ||
== Other contexts == | |||
=== Determiners === | |||
Even saying something like {{t|sá chuq}} invokes our theory of underfilling, as {{t|chuq}} does not have an object. So, does it mean "someone who eats it", or "someone who eats something"? Or does it simply involve the intransitive {{t|chuq}}<sub>1</sub>? (This almost definitely spells trouble for the "disallowing underfilling" idea.) | |||
=== Subclauses === | |||
Underfilling is typically not possible in a [[subclause]]: | |||
{{Example| *Laheq, ꝡä moı jí, ꝡä jıq jí.|(Attempted:) That I think, entails that I exist.}} | |||
The verb {{t|moı}} is transitive. Given how [[self-termination]] works / because subclauses are "greedy", {{t|ꝡä jıq jí}} ends up being the object of {{t|moı}}, not of {{t|laheq}}. Thus, this sentence actually means "That I think about that I exist, entails (it/something)." | |||
We can use the prefix {{t|hạo}}, which turns verbs intransitive by applying whatever theory of underfilling we subscribe to: | |||
{{Example|Laheq, ꝡä hạomoı jí, ꝡä jıq jí.|That I think, entails that I exist.}} | |||