https://toaq.me/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Uakci&feedformat=atomThe Toaq Wiki - User contributions [en]2024-03-28T10:01:29ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.38.1https://toaq.me/index.php?title=User:Uakci&diff=1882User:Uakci2024-03-11T19:17:40Z<p>Uakci: co–blue-hair</p>
<hr />
<div>Hi, our name is '''uakci''' (they/she) and we are (together with [[User:Lynn|Lynn]]) editors-in-chief of this wiki, creators of tools including [[Toadua]], and Toaq name jugglers in perpetuity. Oh, and we also have a [https://uakci.space website], I guess.<br />
<br />
== Pages here ==<br />
{{:Special:PrefixIndex/User:Uakci/}}</div>Uakcihttps://toaq.me/index.php?title=User:Uakci&diff=1881User:Uakci2024-03-11T19:05:10Z<p>Uakci: </p>
<hr />
<div>Hi, our name is '''uakci''' and we are (together with [[User:Lynn|Lynn]]) editors-in-chief of this wiki, creators of tools including [[Toadua]], and Toaq name jugglers in perpetuity. Oh, and we also have a [https://uakci.space website], I guess.<br />
<br />
== Pages here ==<br />
{{:Special:PrefixIndex/User:Uakci/}}</div>Uakcihttps://toaq.me/index.php?title=Semantics&diff=1880Semantics2024-03-11T18:49:50Z<p>Uakci: link to uploaded version of hoemui.pdf</p>
<hr />
<div>Toaq is a loglang, which means that given any sentence, we can unambiguously derive its meaning in logic notation. '''Semantics''', the study of meaning, guides us in determining what those results should look like, and how we might use our knowledge of [[syntax]] to derive them.<br />
<br />
The refgram tells you that {{Derani| |Luı nuo sá tıqra nîe náokua}} translates to <math>\exists x: \text{tıqra}_\text{w}(x).\ \exists e.\ \text{τ}(e)<\text{t}\land \text{nuo}_\text{w}(x)(e)\land \text{nıe}_\text{w}(e, \text{n}\mathrm{\acute{a}}\text{okua})</math>. The reality is that this isn't "just" logic notation: it's a very specific notation that has been purpose-built for describing natural language semantics, and this article will help you understand the core concepts behind it.<br />
<br />
== Models ==<br />
To help us reason about meaning more directly, mathematicians have come up with the idea of a '''model''': a mathematical object that tells us exactly how to interpret statements in a given formal language. In its most basic form, a model has three parts:<br />
<br />
* A '''signature''', which is the set of all words and symbols found in the language, along with their syntactic properties.<br />
* A '''domain''', which is the set of all objects, functions, relations, etc. that the language is capable of representing.<br />
* An '''interpretation''', which is a function defining which symbols correspond to which elements of the domain.<br />
<br />
For example, consider the language of basic arithmetic. A model for this language might look like this:<br />
<br />
[[File:Arithmetic model.svg]]<br />
<br />
As it turns out, Toaq is a formal language too, which means we can reason about it using models. Now, being a human language, Toaq's semantics are quite a bit more complicated than that of arithmetic, but luckily for us, models are a pretty flexible concept, and we can extend them with extra features as we need them.<br />
<br />
In its most basic form, a model for Toaq might look something like this:<br />
<br />
[[File:Toaq model.svg]]<br />
<br />
As you can see, this model holds not just concepts like the meaning of "muao", but also context-sensitive information, such as what "káto" and "jí" refer to.<br />
<br />
Say that you have an idea of what the world is like—maybe you have a mental model in your head, or maybe you have a database to look things up in. If your knowledge is complete enough, then that model lets you answer a question, or tell whether what someone said is true, by interpreting their words and then "looking up" the answer. But more often than not, people are working with incomplete knowledge. In this case, if someone tells you something, a model lets you interpret their words and then ''work backwards'' from the meaning to figure out what must be true about the world.<br />
<br />
A note for the adventurous: There are alternative approaches to semantics that don't involve models, such as [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/#InfIntAntRea proof-theoretic semantics], in which the meaning of a statement is determined purely by its relationships to other statements in a formal proof system. There have been some attempts to apply this approach to Lojban and Toaq semantics<ref>[https://mostawesomedude.github.io/brismu/ brismu], a sketch of an inferential approach to Lojban semantics</ref><ref>[[:File:Hoemuı.pdf|Hoemuı]], the beginnings of a sketch of an inferential approach to Toaq semantics (super outdated)</ref>, but when it comes to natural language semantics, the model-based approach described here is far more common.<br />
<br />
== Basic notation ==<br />
Now, we're ready to talk about notation. When you see something like <math>\exist x: \text{kato}_\text{w}(x). \exist e. \text{τ}(e) \subseteq \text{t} \land \text{neo}_\text{w}(x, \text{m}\mathrm{\acute{u}}\text{ao})(e)</math>, what you're looking at are a bunch of things from the domain of the model. A lot of these words (<math>\text{kato}</math>, <math>\text{neo}</math>, <math>\exist</math>, <math>\text{τ}</math>, <math>\land</math>) are '''functions'''; some others (<math>\text{m}\mathrm{\acute{u}}\text{ao}</math>) represent literal "things" from the domain, like physical objects, people, and ideas, which we'll call '''individuals'''. Together, these words form an expression that shows you how to calculate the truth value of a specific sentence (in this case, {{Derani| |Neo sá kato múao}}), given that you have a model.<br />
<br />
There's an important subtlety here: In languages like English and mathematical logic, you can use words to form statements such as "The sky is blue" and "<math>x + 1 = 2</math>", or you can use them to form smaller expressions, like "the author of this book" and "<math>\left\{1, 2, 3\right\}</math>". But in the semantic notation we're looking at, there are no statements, only expressions, because the point of semantics is to examine the values that things denote, including the values of statements themselves. As such, it doesn't make sense to call this a "logic notation", because on its own, it can't form statements. Instead, we'll call it a '''semantic calculus'''.<br />
<br />
One interesting thing about this notation is that every expression has a '''type''', like some programming languages do. These include:<br />
<br />
* <math>\text{e}</math>, the type of individuals, which encompasses everything you can refer to in Toaq. This is a rather broad category, so to help us get more specific when we need it, it includes a couple of subtypes:<br />
** <math>\text{v}</math>, the type of [[Event|events]] (things that can happen). More on them later.<br />
** <math>\text{i}</math>, the type of time intervals<br />
* <math>\text{t}</math>, the type of truth values, such as 'true' and 'false'<br />
* <math>\text{s}</math>, the type of worlds (frames of reference to evaluate claims by). More on them later.<br />
<br />
There are also functions, for which we use angle brackets: <math>\left\langle \text{v}, \text{t}\right\rangle</math> is the type of functions that take an event as their input, and return a truth value as their output. Functions can take or return other functions: for example, <math>\left\langle\left\langle\text{v}, \text{t}\right\rangle, \left\langle\text{i}, \text{t}\right\rangle\right\rangle</math> is the type of functions that take a function from events to truth values, and return a function from time intervals to truth values.<br />
<br />
To keep all these types straight, we give each a dedicated set of variables:<br />
<br />
* <math>a,\ b,\ c,\ \dots</math> for individuals<br />
** <math>e,\ e',\ e'',\ \dots</math> for events<br />
** <math>t,\ t',\ t'',\ \dots</math> for time intervals<br />
* <math>w,\ w',\ w'',\ \dots</math> for worlds<br />
* <math>P,\ Q,\ R,\ \dots</math> for functions (the exact type is left to context)<br />
<br />
It turns out we don't need variables for truth values, so we don't assign them any.<br />
<br />
Be careful when reading these letters, because italics are meaningful. There are some tricky pairs of symbols such as <math>w</math>, which is a world variable, versus <math>\text{w}</math>, which is a constant referring to the real world, and <math>t</math>, which is a time interval variable, versus <math>\text{t}</math>, which is a constant referring to the salient time interval.<br />
<br />
Another important feature of this language is that it has a special syntax for writing functions, known as a '''lambda expression'''. They're easy to spot because they start with the Greek letter <math>\lambda</math>, and have two components: a variable name representing the function's input, and an expression representing the function's output. For example, <math>\lambda n.\ 2n + 1</math> is a function that takes a value <math>n</math> as its input, and outputs the value <math>2n + 1</math>. Since <math>n</math> is a variable of type <math>\text{e}</math>, and <math>2n + 1</math> is an expression of type <math>\text{e}</math>, we can tell that this function has type <math>\left\langle \text{e}, \text{e} \right\rangle</math>. Similarly, <math>\lambda e.\ \text{saqsu}(\text{j}\mathrm{\acute{i}})(e)</math> is a function of type <math>\left\langle \text{v}, \text{t} \right\rangle</math> which computes whether <math>e</math> is an event of the speaker whispering.<br />
<br />
You can apply these lambda functions to an argument in the same way you would apply a named function: by placing them before their argument, surrounded with parentheses. For example, if we say that <math>P</math> is the function <math>\lambda x.\ \text{ruq}(x)</math>, then <math>P(r)</math> and <math>(\lambda x.\ \text{ruq}(x))(r)</math> are two ways of saying the same thing—they both evaluate to <math>\text{ruq}(r)</math>.<br />
<br />
Finally, here are some common symbols that you'll see. It's no coincidence that these match the symbols used in mathematical logic, and even share the same syntax! But in the world of semantics, you should learn think of them as functions rather than operators that get special syntactic treatment.<br />
<br />
* Conjunctions, which attach to two truth values and output a new truth value (type <math>\left\langle \text{t}, \left\langle \text{t}, \text{t} \right\rangle \right\rangle</math>)<br />
** <math>\land</math> for "and"<br />
** <math>\lor</math> for "or"<br />
* Polarizers, which attach to one truth value and output a new truth value (type <math>\left\langle \text{t}, \text{t} \right\rangle</math>)<br />
** <math>\neg</math> for "not"<br />
** <math>\dagger</math> for "indeed", "in fact"<br />
* Quantifiers, which take a predicate (and optionally, another predicate to restrict the domain) and output a truth value (type <math>\left\langle \left\langle \text{e}, \text{t} \right\rangle, \text{t} \right\rangle</math> or <math>\left\langle \left\langle \text{e}, \text{t} \right\rangle, \left\langle \left\langle \text{e}, \text{t} \right\rangle, \text{t} \right\rangle \right\rangle </math>)<br />
** <math>\exist</math> for "some"<br />
** <math>\forall</math> for "every"<br />
<br />
For example, we might write the interpretation of "indeed, every person is living or dead" as <math>\dagger \forall a : \text{poq}(a).\ \text{mie}(a) \lor \text{muaq}(a)</math>.<br />
<br />
== Events ==<br />
One of the most basic jobs of any semantic theory is to define how verbs work. The traditional approach, used widely throughout mathematics, is to represent {{Derani| |Fa jí náomi}} as <math>\text{fa}(\text{j}\mathrm{\acute{i}}, \text{n}\mathrm{\acute{a}}\text{omi})</math>, where the verb is interpreted as a function (here, <math>\left\langle \text{e} \left\langle \text{e}, \text{t} \right\rangle \right\rangle</math>) receiving the subject and any objects as arguments. But sadly, this approach is unable to account for tense, aspect, or adverbs.<br />
<br />
Modern semantics research has settled on a single concept to overcome all of these issues: '''events'''. An event is an extra argument passed to a verb representing the action itself; the instance of that verb "happening". For instance, <math>\text{fa}(\text{j}\mathrm{\acute{i}}, \text{n}\mathrm{\acute{a}}\text{omi})(e)</math> represents whether <math>e</math> is an event of the speaker going to the sea. Whereas the first two arguments represent the participants in the action (the goer and the destination), ''e'' stands for the thing that connects them: the going, or the journey. Then, a sentence like {{Derani| |Fa jí náomi}} can be understood as claiming that there ''is'' such an event: <math>\exists e.\ \text{fa}(\text{j}\mathrm{\acute{i}}, \text{n}\mathrm{\acute{a}}\text{omi})(e)</math>. This system is credited to philosopher Donald Davidson, giving it the name '''Davidsonian event semantics'''.<br />
<br />
This gives us a systematic way to deal with adverbs: to modify the verb, modify the ''event variable introduced by the verb''. This is intended to reflect the intuition that "I slept briefly" has the same meaning as "My sleep was brief". For example, {{Derani| |Nuo jîm jí}} can be interpreted as <math>\exists e.\ \text{nuo}(\text{j}\mathrm{\acute{i}})(e) \land \text{jim}(e)</math>. And prepositions work similarly: for {{Derani| |Lao jí nîe jío}} we would use <math>\exists e.\ \text{lao}(\text{j}\mathrm{\acute{i}})(e) \land \text{nie}(e, \text{j}\mathrm{\acute{i}}\text{o})</math> — "whether there is some event of me waiting that is inside the building".<br />
<br />
With events in our toolbox, tense and aspect also fall into place. If we imagine that every event has a temporal footprint (the points in time at which it takes place), then it seems reasonable that there should be a function to access this information. We call this <math>\tau</math>, the '''temporal trace function''' (type <math>\left\langle \text{v}, \text{i} \right\rangle</math>). Aspect is then understood as making a claim about an event's temporal structure, relative to a reference time determined by the tense. For instance, {{Derani||tam}} makes the claim that the event's temporal trace lies fully within the reference time: <math>\tau(e) \subseteq \text{t}</math>. (This one comes up a lot, because {{Derani||tam}} is the default aspect.) And {{Derani||luı}} makes the claim that the event's temporal trace comes before the reference time: <math>\tau(e) < \text{t}</math>.<br />
<br />
So including aspect, the ''complete'' interpretation of {{Derani| |Fa jí náomi}} should be <math>\exists e.\ \tau(e) \subseteq \text{t} \land \text{fa}(\text{j}\mathrm{\acute{i}}, \text{n}\mathrm{\acute{a}}\text{omi})(e)</math>. This is a little cumbersome to read, so you will sometimes see it abbreviated to <math>\text{fa}(\text{j}\mathrm{\acute{i}}, \text{n}\mathrm{\acute{a}}\text{omi})</math> when we're being lazy.<br />
<br />
== Presuppositions ==<br />
Some statements carry a set of assumptions in addition to their main semantic content. When we say "The current king of France is bald", it is assumed that there ''is'' a current king of France. And likewise, the sentence {{Derani| |Luı nuo sá tıqra nîe náokua}} carries the assumption that {{Derani||náokua}} actually refers to a bathroom. (It would be nonsensical to say such a thing while pointing to, say, a car!) The technical term for an assumption of this kind is a '''presupposition'''.<br />
<br />
There's a trick that we can use to write presuppositions alongside a semantic expression: by leveraging the mathematical notion of an expression being '''undefined'''. Just as <math>1 \div x</math> is undefined when <math>x = 0</math>, "the current king of France" should be undefined when France has no king. In semantic notation, we write this as <math>\text{bald}(\text{k})\text{, defined only if king}(\text{k}, \text{France}) </math>. This restricts the possible models to only those that set <math>\text{k}</math> to be a king of France.<br />
<br />
Note that this <math>\text{defined only if}</math> clause can appear anywhere within an expression, not just at the top level. One example where it ''needs'' to be embedded in a sub-expression is in {{Derani| |Gaq tú deo ké pao âq}}. This becomes: <math>\forall a : \text{deo}(a).\ \exists e.\ \tau(e) \subseteq \text{t}\ \land\ \text{gaq}(a, [\text{P}(a)\text{, defined only if }\text{pao}(\text{P}(a), a)])(e)</math>. Moving the <math>\text{defined only if}</math> clause to the top level wouldn't work, because it uses the variable <math>a</math>, which is only available inside the scope of the <math>\forall</math> function.<br />
<br />
In lambda expressions, you might also come across the syntax <math>\lambda a : \text{naokua}(a).\ \text{ti}(\text{t}\mathrm{\acute{i}}\text{qra}, a)</math>, where <math>\lambda</math> is imagined to be a quantifier restricted by <math>\text{naokua}(a)</math>. This is the same thing as writing <math>\lambda a .\ (\text{ti}(\text{t}\mathrm{\acute{i}}\text{qra}, a)\text{, defined only if naokua}(a))</math>.<br />
<br />
== Worlds ==<br />
Another important concept for any semantic theory to cover is '''modality''': the treatment of words such as {{Derani||she}}, {{Derani||daı}}, {{Derani||ao}}, and {{Derani||dı}}. We use these words to make claims not about the actual state of the world, but about possibilities, obligations, or beliefs. The tried and true system for reasoning about modality, named after philosopher Saul Kripke, is known as '''Kripke semantics'''.<br />
<br />
In Kripke semantics, we imagine that there are a multitude of '''worlds''': one world, <math>\text{w}</math>, represents the real world, while others represent alternate timelines. Then, every verb is extended to take a world argument: for example, <math>\exists e.\ \text{saqsu}_\text{w}(\text{j}\mathrm{\acute{i}})(e)</math> computes whether there is an event of the speaker whispering ''in the real world'', with the world variable being written in a subscript for readability.<br />
<br />
In this framework, we can understand modals as making claims about alternate worlds. For instance, {{Derani| |Shê, ꝡä tao sı súq fáfuaq, nä cho súq hóq}} means "in all possible worlds, minimally different from the real world, in which you go to see the movie, you like it". In semantic notation, that looks like: <math>\forall w: (\text{SHE}(\text{w}, w)\ \land\ \exists e.\ \tau(e) \subseteq \text{t}\ \land\ \text{si}_w(\text{s}\mathrm{\acute{u}}\text{q}, \text{f}\mathrm{\acute{a}}\text{fuaq})(e))).\ \exists e.\ \tau(e) \subseteq \text{t'}\ \land\ \text{cho}_w(\text{s}\mathrm{\acute{u}}\text{q}, \text{f}\mathrm{\acute{a}}\text{fuaq})(e)</math>. The function <math>\text{SHE}(\text{w}, w)</math> is the part that stands for "<math>w</math> is a possible world minimally different from the real world". The technical term for this function is the '''accessibility relation''', because it defines which worlds we can "access" and talk about using the modal {{Derani||she}}.<br />
<br />
Some modals, such as {{Derani||daı}}, use the quantifier <math>\exists</math> instead of <math>\forall</math>, because for something to be possible, it only needs to be true in one possible world. Other modals, such as {{Derani||dı}}, use a completely different accessibility relation (<math>\text{DUAI}</math>) to talk about ''acceptable worlds'' rather than possible worlds. And other modals, such as {{Derani||ao}}, use an accessibility relation that presupposes that the complement is not true in the reference world, to achieve a counterfactual effect. This world metaphor really is flexible enough to account for all modals!<br />
<br />
Note that similarly to events, we sometimes get lazy and neglect to write the world arguments on verbs.<br />
<br />
== Propositions ==<br />
A '''proposition''' is, in the broadest sense, anything that bears a truth value, such as a fact, a belief, or the meaning of a sentence. We can say that the sentence "Die Erde ist ein Planet" expresses the proposition that the Earth is a planet, and likewise, in the sentence "I believe that I saw a ghost", we can identify "that I saw a ghost" as referring to the proposition that the speaker saw a ghost.<br />
<br />
In Toaq, we use the complementizer {{Derani||ꝡä}} to create a reference to a proposition, which can then become the complement of another verb. So, our semantic theory needs to account for this construct, and it turns out that it's best to use two different "interpretations" of propositions for this purpose.<br />
<br />
The first interpretation is '''propositions as functions'''. The idea is to interpret a complementizer phrase as a function which takes a world as an input, and outputs the truth value of the proposition in that world (type <math>\left\langle \text{s}, \text{t} \right\rangle</math>). So for example, in {{Derani| |Chı jí, ꝡä za ruqshua}}, we would interpret the complementizer phrase as <math>\lambda w.\ \exists e.\ \tau(e) > \text{t} \land \text{ruqshua}_w(e)</math>, and pass this as an argument to the main verb, giving <math>\exists e'.\ \tau(e') \subseteq \text{t'} \land \text{chi}_{\text{w}}(\text{ji}, \lambda w.\ \exists e.\ \tau(e) > \text{t} \land \text{ruqshua}_w(e))(e')</math>. Note that it would be wrong to interpret the complementizer phrase as <math>\exists e.\ \tau(e) > \text{t} \land \text{ruqshua}_{\text{w}}(e)</math>, because this evaluates to a simple truth value, which fails to capture the statement's semantic content. No one goes around saying "I believe [TRUE]" or "I believe [FALSE]". By using a function, we capture the statement's '''intension''' (its abstract connotation) rather than its '''extension''' (the concrete truth value held by the statement in the real world).<br />
<br />
This approach is nice and simple, but it does have limitations. In Toaq, we can not only reference propositions with {{Derani||ꝡä}}, but we can also assign them to variables, or even quantify over them, as in the sentence {{Derani| |Dua jí sía raı}}. A naive approach to interpreting this sentence would be <math>\neg\exists P.\ \exists e.\ \tau(e) \subseteq \text{t} \land \text{dua}_{\text{w}}(\text{ji}, P)(e)</math>, where the variable {{Derani||ráı}} is taken to range over functions of type <math>\left\langle \text{s}, \text{t} \right\rangle</math>. But if you let Toaq variables range over functions from the model, this now lets you construct the '''liar paradox''', a sentence which contradicts itself: {{Derani| |Sahu ní ruaqse}}. Interpreting this sentence, we get <math>\text{L}_\text{w} = \text{sahu}_\text{w}(\text{L}) = \neg \text{L}_\text{w}</math>, which is problematic. Philosophers have studied this paradox extensively, and come up with a few different possible responses:<br />
<br />
* Restrict the language's syntax so that it can't even express the liar paradox (not an option for a human language like Toaq)<br />
* Allow models to contain contradictions, by departing from classical logic in some way (for example, by adding a 3rd truth value, or otherwise weakening the logic to prevent [[wikipedia:Principle_of_explosion|explosion]])<br />
* Use a more specific notion of truth for propositions, so that the language doesn't literally contain its own truth predicate<br />
<br />
Both of the last two options will work, and we should ensure that our semantic notation can accommodate either of them as resolutions to the paradox. This is where the second interpretation comes in: '''propositions as individuals'''. The idea is to let some individuals stand for propositions, and use the functions <math>\text{juna}</math> and <math>\text{sahu}</math> (both of type <math>\left\langle \text{e}, \left\langle \text{s}, \text{t} \right\rangle \right\rangle</math>) to access their semantic content. There could also be a function <math>\text{prop}</math> (type <math>\left\langle \left\langle \text{s}, \text{t} \right\rangle, \text{e} \right\rangle</math>) which lets you convert propositions in the other direction, from functions to individuals. With this approach, quantifying over propositions, as in {{Derani| |Dua jí sía raı}}, looks like this: <math>\neg\exists a.\ \exists e.\ \tau(e) \subseteq \text{t} \land \text{dua}_{\text{w}}(\text{ji}, \text{juna}(a))(e)</math>. Note the use of <math>\text{juna}</math> to convert the variable <math>a</math> into an <math>\left\langle \text{s}, \text{t} \right\rangle</math>, which enables us to reuse the same version of <math>\text{dua}</math> that takes <math>\left\langle \text{s}, \text{t} \right\rangle</math> propositions.<br />
<br />
The consequence of this approach is that we now have a layer of abstraction to play with (<math>\text{juna}</math> and <math>\text{sahu}</math>), so that models are free to apply any reasonable resolution to the liar paradox. For example, we can allow the contradiction to exist by setting <math>\text{sahu}_\text{w}(\text{prop}(P))</math> directly equal to <math>\neg P_\text{w}</math>, or we can let <math>\text{juna}</math> and <math>\text{sahu}</math> refer to some more specific notion of truth that is resistant to the liar paradox, such as Kripkean truth<ref>Kripke, S., 1975, “Outline of a theory of truth”, ''Journal of Philosophy'', 72: 690–716.</ref> or stable/categorical truth<ref>[https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-revision/index.html The Revision Theory of Truth (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)]</ref>.<br />
<br />
== Properties ==<br />
A '''property''' is an incomplete proposition; a claim with blanks to be filled. A simple example would be the property "◯ is red", also known as "to be red" or simply "redness". By filling in the blank, you get a proposition: "the apple is red". Properties can be arbitrarily complex, containing nested clauses or even multiple blanks: for example, "◯ can't believe that ◯ is not butter". In Toaq, properties are marked by the complementizer {{Derani||lä}}.<br />
<br />
The good news is that once you understand the semantics behind propositions, properties aren't far out of reach. We still have the same concerns: capturing the intension rather than the extension, and enabling variables to refer to properties without creating a paradox. Properties are represented in the same way as propositions, just with an extra parameter or two added for the blanks. This means we get both function-type and individual-type representations.<br />
<br />
We use the function representation whenever a property in Toaq is spelled out explicitly with the complementizer {{Derani||lä}}. For example, the property in {{Derani| |Leo jí, lä nuo já}} would be interpreted as <math>\lambda a.\ \lambda w.\ \exists e.\ \tau(e) \subseteq \text{t} \land \text{nuo}_w(a)(e)</math>, a function of type <math>\left\langle \text{e}, \left\langle \text{s}, \text{t} \right\rangle \right\rangle</math>. And for a property with two blanks, you would use a function of type <math>\left\langle \text{e}, \left\langle \text{e}, \left\langle \text{s}, \text{t} \right\rangle \right\rangle \right\rangle</math>.<br />
<br />
But whenever a Toaq variable is used as a property, we need to fall back to the properties as individuals approach, using <math>\text{iq}</math> (type <math>\left\langle \text{e}, \left\langle \text{e}, \left\langle \text{s}, \text{t} \right\rangle \right\rangle \right\rangle</math>) or <math>\text{cuoi}</math> (type <math>\left\langle \text{e}, \left\langle \text{e}, \left\langle \text{e}, \left\langle \text{s}, \text{t} \right\rangle \right\rangle \right\rangle \right\rangle</math>) to access its semantic content. So, the correct interpretation of {{Derani| |Che nháo sá jua}} would be <math>\exists a : \text{jua}_\text{w}(a).\ \exists e.\ \tau(e) \subseteq \text{t} \land \text{che}_\text{w}(\text{nh}\mathrm{\acute{a}}\text{o}, \lambda b.\ \text{iq}(b, a))(e) </math>.<br />
<br />
== Notes ==<br />
<references /></div>Uakcihttps://toaq.me/index.php?title=File:Hoemu%C4%B1.pdf&diff=1879File:Hoemuı.pdf2024-03-11T18:47:33Z<p>Uakci: By User:Loekıa|</p>
<hr />
<div>== Summary ==<br />
By [[User:Loekıa|Loekıa]]</div>Uakcihttps://toaq.me/index.php?title=Noun_form&diff=1878Noun form2024-03-11T18:45:44Z<p>Uakci: add toaq name of concept</p>
<hr />
<div>A '''noun form''' (known in Toaq as an '''{{t|aqmı}}''') is any string of words that can appear as an argument to a [[verb form]]. In Toaq, this can be:<br />
<br />
* a [[determiner phrase]] {{gray|like {{t|cáo}} <i>the season</i> or {{t|ké pıo}} <i>that one rock</i> or {{t|tú}} <i>everything</i> or {{t|gú ë gıtoı súq jí}} <i>the two times you treated me well</i>}};<br />
* a [[pronoun]] {{gray|like {{t|máq}} <i>it (inanimate)</i> or {{t|hụ́la}} <i>the aforementioned {{t|lä}}-clause</i>}};<br />
* a [[complementizer phrase]] starting with {{Done|3}} (aka a subclause) {{gray|like {{t|ꝡä nıtı súq}} <i>that you are here</i> or {{t|mä loq río}} <i>if it [the air]’s hot</i> or {{t|lä sı báq bụzao puı já}} <i>to be stared at by many strangers</i>}};<br />
* any [[conjunction]] of any of the above {{gray|like {{t|jí róı súq}} <i>me and you</i>}};<br />
* any [[focus]] phrase wrapping any of the above {{gray|like {{t|tó dóte}} <i>only the gift</i>}}.<br />
<br />
We use the phrase <i>noun form</i> in place of <i>noun, noun phrase, argument</i> for reasons of clarity – see technical discussion at [[Verb form, noun form]].</div>Uakcihttps://toaq.me/index.php?title=Verb_form&diff=1877Verb form2024-03-11T18:45:20Z<p>Uakci: add toaq name of concept</p>
<hr />
<div>A '''verb form''' (known in Toaq as a '''{{t|jena}}''') is any string of words that can be placed in [[verb]] position. In Toaq, this can be:<br />
<br />
* an atomic (“single-word”) verb {{gray|like {{t|rua}} <i>to be a flower</i>}};<br />
* an atomic verb taking an [[object incorporation|incorporated object]] {{gray|like {{t|bue jî}} <i>to be my house</i> or {{t|chua sâ ruaı}} <i>to be the name of a royal</i>}};<br />
* a [[predicatizer]] taking a [[noun form]] {{gray|like {{t|po jí}} <i>to be mine / of me</i> or {{t|mea chóaq}} <i>to be among the guests</i>}};<br />
* a [[quote]] {{gray|like {{t|shu ‹kası›}} <i>to be the word ‘kası’</i> or {{t|mı Dıao}} <i>to be Dıao; to be named ‘Dıao’</i>}};<br />
* an {{t|[[ë]]}}-phrase {{gray|like {{t|ë dea súq múao}} <i>to be your kicking a tree; to be an event of you kicking a tree</i>}};<br />
* a [[serial verb]] composing any of the above {{gray|like {{t|leo maı}} <i>to try to love</i> or {{t|du ë cheo soı sá shụqguamea}} <i>to seem like a fight between plain civilians</i>}};<br />
* a [[conjunction]] of atomic verbs {{gray|like {{t|de ru nuı}} <i>to be beautiful and small</i>}};<br />
* a [[focus]]ing of an atomic verb {{gray|like {{t|jụaqrıatua}} <i>even to open; to go so far as to open<i>}}.<br />
<br />
We use the phrase <i>verb form</i> in place of <i>verb, verb phrase, predicate</i> for reasons of clarity – see technical discussion at [[Verb form, noun form]].</div>Uakcihttps://toaq.me/index.php?title=Definite&diff=1873Definite2024-02-07T09:58:54Z<p>Uakci: add túq, (tó)ꝡaı; flesh out denotations for the ℩… functionals</p>
<hr />
<div>== [[Determiner]]s ==<br />
The following determiners are '''definite''', which means that they refer to one concrete [[Plural_logic|things]] and not multiple possible thingses, like with {{t|sá}}. In other words, they act like constants.<br />
{| class=wikitable<br />
! {{t|hú}}<br />
| ‘the aforementioned’. Always resolves to one concrete thing, even if that thing might not be clear to the hearer<br />
|-<br />
! {{t|ké}}<br />
| ‘the not aforementioned’. Same as above<br />
|-<br />
! {{t|báq}}<br />
| Always resolves to the associated [[kind]]. {{t|báq kanı}} is always a singular ‘rabbit-kind’<br />
|-<br />
! {{t|túq}}<br />
| ‘all’; ‘the totality of’<br />
|-<br />
! {{t|cúaq||#9NfM8JXeD}}<br />
| (Unofficial:) ‘the concept of satisfying property’. Always refers to that one concept<br />
|-<br />
! {{t|ꝡáı||#xvC8-FhEy}}<br />
| (Unofficial:) ‘the (aforementioned or not)’. To be understood as a hypernym of {{t|hú}} and {{t|ké}}<br />
|-<br />
! {{t|tóꝡaı||#SaSWb3ZIb}}<br />
| (Unofficial:) ‘the unique’<br />
|}<br />
{{done|2}} is definite when it refers to a phrase that appears in the same sentence and that phrase is definite. Otherwise, it does the same thing as {{t|ké}} does, which is definite, too.<br />
<br />
== Semantics jank ==<br />
We say a noun phrase is '''definite''' if it’s a function of just one plural constant.<br />
<br />
For a clause like {{t|{{small caps|P}} {{class|sá}} {{small caps|Q}}}}, where the quantifier is represented as ◻, if we’re able to rephrase the usual denotation<br />
<blockquote><br />
[◻𝑥 : 𝑄𝑥] 𝑃𝑥<br />
</blockquote><br />
as<br />
<blockquote><br />
𝑃(℩<sub>◻</sub>(𝑄))<br />
</blockquote><br />
where ℩<sub>◻</sub> exists and is some ⟨⟨𝚎, 𝚝⟩, 𝚎⟩ – then we say that the quantifier ◻ (and its associated determiner {{class|sá}}) is definite. In other words, ◻ can be mapped to some ℩<sub>◻</sub> such that for any 𝑄 of our choosing, ℩<sub>◻</sub>(𝑄) resolves to a single plural constant, which can then directly be plugged into 𝑃 to judge the truth value of the entire clause. And indeed for the determiners listed above we have:<br />
* ℩<sub>⟦{{t|ꝡáı}}⟧</sub>(𝑄) = the contextually appropriate 𝑄<br />
* ℩<sub>⟦{{t|hú}}⟧</sub>(𝑄) = the aforementioned 𝑄<br />
* ℩<sub>⟦{{t|ké}}⟧</sub>(𝑄) = the contextually appropriate 𝑄, not aforementioned<br />
* ℩<sub>⟦{{t|báq}}⟧</sub>(𝑄) = 𝑄-kind; the kind of 𝑄s<br />
* ℩<sub>⟦{{t|túq}}⟧</sub>(𝑄) = such an 𝑥 : 𝑄𝑥 for which [∀𝑥′ : 𝑄𝑥′] 𝑥′ ⊑ 𝑥. In other words, an 𝑥 : 𝑄𝑥 which “subsumes” all other 𝑥′ : 𝑄𝑥′<br />
* ℩<sub>⟦{{t|cúaq}}⟧</sub>(𝑄) = 𝑄 itself (as an ⟨𝚎, 𝚝⟩ property) ≈ ⟦{{t|lä}} ⟧𝑄⟦ {{t|já}}⦄<br />
* ℩<sub>⟦{{t|tóꝡaı}}⟧</sub>(𝑄) = the unique 𝑥 for which 𝑄𝑥; more precisely, entails [∀𝑥′ : 𝑄𝑥′] 𝑥′ = 𝑥. Equivalent to [[wikipedia:Definite_description#Mathematical_logic|Russell’s iota notation]] – ℩𝑥(𝑄𝑥) – by which the ℩<sub>…</sub> notation in this article is inspired<br />
Note that these are not required to ''successfully'' resolve to a plural constant. They may also produce a presuppositional failure, e.g., {{t|ꝡáı/hú/ké sıapuı}} cannot resolve to anything because {{t|sıapuı}} is trivially false, and {{t|tóꝡaı req}} is going to fail in a world where {{t|puq túq req}} holds. What’s important is that in none of these cases the [◻𝑥 : 𝑄𝑥] 𝑃𝑥 form can succeed if the 𝑃(℩<sub>◻</sub>(𝑄)) form fails.<br />
<br />
Then, any free determiner phrase is definite if all indices inside it are<br />
* bound inside the 𝑛P<br />
* bound outside the 𝑛P, to a phrase that is itself transitively definite<br />
So for example, the following examples are all definite:<br />
* {{t|pó sá}} ({{t|sá}} is contained within {{t|po}}’s internal CPᵣₑₗ, hence does not escape)<br />
* {{t|ké kune bï, cho jí <u>réo hobo</u>}} ({{t|hóbo}} points to {{t|ké kune}}, which is itself definite)</div>Uakcihttps://toaq.me/index.php?title=Resources&diff=1847Resources2024-01-27T22:32:44Z<p>Uakci: replace discord.com/attachments links with local uploads</p>
<hr />
<div>== Social venues (in decreasing importance) ==<br />
* [https://discord.gg/qDqDsH9 Main Toaq Discord server]; see article [[Discord]]<br />
* [https://github.com/toaq/ Toaq coder group on GitHub] ([https://github.com/toaq-dev unofficial group for pre-releases])<br />
* [https://www.reddit.com/r/Toaq The Toaq subreddit]<br />
* Toaq on Twitter: [https://twitter.com/hashtag/miToaq #miToaq] &amp; [https://twitter.com/ToaqLanguage @ToaqLanguage].<br />
* [https://matrix.to/#/#toaq:robin.town A nascent Matrix community]<br />
<br />
== Official and recommended materials ==<br />
The below links are either owned, managed, or endorsed by [[Hoemaı]]. Use them as a starting place for your Toaq journey.<br />
<br />
=== References ===<br />
* [https://toaq.net/ Toaq.net]: main Toaq site; includes the [[reference grammar]]<br />
** [https://toaq.net/refgram/00/ Reference Grammar]; see article above (see also [[Media:伽马托昂语参考语法.pdf|Chinese translation by Haıdosıanı]])<br />
** [https://toaq.net/TwE/ Toaq with Ease] – a gentle textbook for learning Toaq, delivered in bite-sized lessons containing audio<br />
** [https://toaq.net/dictionary/ Official Toaq dictionary] – over 1200 [[root]]s, particles, original [[compound]]s, and coinings that sit at the core of the language ([https://github.com/toaq/dictionary source code])<br />
* [https://toaqlanguage.wordpress.com/ The official Toaq blog], featuring a mix of language updates and feature focus articles<br />
*: <i>Some of the posts on the Toaq blog have coverage on this wiki: [[Changes between Beta and Gamma]].</i><br />
<br />
=== Resources ===<br />
* [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bCQoaX02ZyaElHiiMcKHFemO4eV1MEYmYloYZgOAhac/edit#gid=0 Toaq sentences with audio] – several thousand sentences accompanied by English translations and (WIP) audio<br />
* [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xgt7dPGWSBHx7LTQzl_JqMrti-hgmk1zVA_gCY9TPfM/edit Serial predicate primer]; also see article [[Serial verb]]<br />
* [https://toaq.net/kata/ mí Kảtā] ('''outdated''') – a distilled introduction to the language<br />
* [https://toaq.net/cheatsheet.png Cheatsheet] ('''outdated'''); also see article [[Cheat sheet]]<br />
<br />
=== Tools ===<br />
* [https://toaq.net/peg/ Parser with syntax-tree diagramming] (note: you should prefer using [[Zugaı]] over this)<br />
* [http://toaq.herokuapp.com/ Mıu: a Toaq parser and translator to logic notation] ('''outdated'''; [https://github.com/toaq/miu source code]; [https://github.com/eaburns/toaq/blob/master/ast/toaq.peg grammar])<br />
* [https://toadua.uakci.pl/ Toadua]: the community dictionary, featuring several thousand unofficial words as well as official ones<br />
* [https://foldr.moe/kaichuo/ Typing tool]; also see article [[Input methods]]<br />
* [https://niftg.gitlab.io/t3wip/ Tone trainer]<br />
<br />
== Unofficial and community-managed resources ==<br />
<br />
=== References ===<br />
* This wiki (duh!).<br />
** [[FAQ|A voluminous FAQ]]<br />
<br />
=== Tools ===<br />
* [https://toaq.net/chuotiai/toaq_tooltip_ext.html Tooltipping tool] – lets you peek at definitions of words in running text by hovering at them<br />
* [https://github.com/mazziechai/toadua-anki Toadua Anki] lets you create Anki notes (cards) from Toadua entries using word #ids. [https://github.com/mazziechai/toadua-anki/releases/tag/0.2.0 Download 0.2.0 here]<br />
<br />
=== Tech ===<br />
* [https://github.com/acotis/serial-predicate-engine A serial predicate engine that expands serials into their full forms] (by [[Hoaqgıo]])<br />
* [https://github.com/uakci/nuigui Another serial predicate engine] (by [[uakci]])<br />
* [[Hoaqgıo]]’s typing aids (see article [[Input methods]] for a more comprehensive overview):<br />
** [https://github.com/acotis/autokey-toaq-tones An AutoKey script]<br />
** [https://github.com/acotis/kanakey Kanakey] – for typing in Toaq and Japanese kana<br />
<br />
=== Flashcards ===<br />
<br />
* Vocabulary Anki decks meant to compliment each other (by Nhaqpoq)<br />
** [[Media:Toaq_160.apkg|160 non-predicates (i.e. grammar, interjections, particles)]]<br />
** [[Media:Toaq_532.apkg|532 single-raku predicates]]<br />
** [[Media:Toaq_627.apkg|627 multi-raku predicates]]<br />
<br />
* [[Media:Toaq_Grammar.apkg|Grammar Anki deck]] (by Xeizzeth#2081)<br />
* [[Media:toaq.apkg|All official words in an Anki Deck]] (by lily ✨#9119)<br />
* [https://app.memrise.com/course/6275693/toaq/ Toaq Memrise] [WIP] (by [[nano]])<br />
* [[Media:Derani.apkg|Derani Anki]] (by lottess#5356)<br />
<br />
=== Write-ups ===<br />
* [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oIiqo1O1M7wgJbbV64k4mv_csOZB_HARd6_3E_DlV5s/edit On Relative Clauses, Or the horse that is white], (by Zeokueqche)<br />
* [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DXPhnUXNREGbKbsHLr56QroBXcrdaruQRj2koriE1DU/edit Hoemaı’s document for plotting ''Toaq with Ease'']<br />
* [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14kofIHlThlkReQYLNZy3pJ4OwZJq1o2eqX-pQYvwd00/edit Toaq mathematics]<br />
* [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KDisndRL7KZzctp6bVm13f6VuB92qET_fTC8apxuX7k/edit#gid=0 Learn these words first!] (outdated? [[user:uakci|uakci]]<sup>[[user talk:uakci|talk]]</sup> 23:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC))<br />
<br />
=== Technical data ===<br />
* [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d1XKUy3ClUyfO2iZTWJpWZeJJbPNCM9yM_iaelMC1iA/edit Grammatical class sheet]; also see [[User:Uakci/Rime tables]]<br />
* [https://gist.github.com/lynn/8016843ba21352bb48f488d39d9659e9 Most up-to-date Toaq frequency list (2019) with translations]<br />
* [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1asrln45mT3dTZm_uSG7VLWHK33uyza0fg2icnymwbmQ/edit#gid=0 Translating Ithkuil grammemes]<br />
* [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1P9p1D38p364JSiNqLMGwY3zDRPQ_f6Yob_OL-uku28Q/edit ''The Spreadsheet''], containing:<br />
** old proposals (these are now incorporated into [[Toadua]] as user ''spreadsheet'')<br />
** the country and language translation sheet (uplinked with Toadua)<br />
** some random Lojban/Toaq miscellanea from 2017–8<br />
<br />
=== Literature ===<br />
* <strong>⇒ [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Q58X6YPAAYfu07fscKcxtZY5w5KDeyxYdz0qAhN63UU/edit Central Toaq corpus]</strong><br />
* [https://github.com/toaq/huaibai Minecraft translation] (primarily by [[Sẻoqrea]])<br />
<br />
=== Recordings ===<br />
* Recordings by [[Hoemaı]], now outdated:<br />
** [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n00L4Y4tvDQ {{t|dı̉o da, nủaq da (TOAQ RAP)}}]<br />
** [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtXVdm4x0RY&feature=youtu.be Pronouncing a list of Toaq animal words]<br />
** [http://selpahi.de/toaqdzu1.mp3 A recording of old Toaq] ([[Versions|Toaq Dzu]])<br />
* Old recordings by [[Hoaqgıo]]:<br />
** [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDCcE2qF4Oo {{t|Sa Búai Hủohūa}}] – a recording of part 1 of their in-progress epic novel (cf. [[#Literature|the corpus]])<br />
** [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V6vMfR3rrk {{t|Sa Póq Kǎqsīu Páı}}] – “a true story”, they note<br />
** [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhjVzqxrKWs {{t|Chíe hǔibōnūa}}]<br />
<br />
=== Old resources; could be recycled or updated or recatalogued ===<br />
Remove from this list once confirmed that all of the information encapsulated in a link is present elsewhere, e.g., on this wiki.<br />
<br />
* Memrise courses:<br />
** [https://www.memrise.com/course/1974691/toaq-simple-predicates-2018-06-03/ Memrise course in simple predicates, 2018-06-03]<br />
** [https://app.memrise.com/course/2207610/toaq-1000-phrases-wip/ Toaq 1000 phrases (WIP)] by Xylochoron<br />
** [https://app.memrise.com/course/1573407/toaq-language/ A memrise deck, learn how to use the tones]<br />
* [https://github.com/mklcp/mietoa Old dictionary database and bot] by melopee<br />
* [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YrmVWnsaMOhvYsThkLvviGLVYqfCjDXjfPOAGn7f6l4/edit {{t|Te tua shai suo (ru ca beo mu tei)}}] (a small dictionary? by [[Hoaqgıo]])<br />
* [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mIxenRl8z7VLHcfbFfWRSCD9eC_t30N1kXJZc-ZYZJI/edit {{t|Toakūe}}] (an actual dictionary, albeit a small one)<br />
* [https://toaq.net/letters/ Toaq soundboard] (now redundant to the ''Phonology'' section in the refgram)<br />
* [[Vietoaq]]-related:<br />
** [http://foldr.moe/vietoaq/ Lynn’s vietoaq quizzer]<br />
* [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kgxEFBlYhQblTiHzhOqrwLVbYAQjXXa8OUgnnQRQudo/edit List of phrases] (??)<br />
* [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NNHLIZ_vg9YpMCBN4hVgkDrYSDeq9AKePc4aWI-TuPg/edit ''Words I don’t get''] (editor’s note: only keeping this link because it pertains to a discussion that hasn’t yet been settled once and for all [[user:uakci|uakci]]<sup>[[user talk:uakci|talk]]</sup> 23:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC))<br />
* [https://pastebin.com/tyNAqngM ''Lambda expressions in Toaq'']<br />
<br />
== Semi-related links ==<br />
* [https://github.com/Ntsekees/Predilex Predilex]: a database of predicates with definitions, tags and cross-linking with corresponding words in different loglangs, including Toaq<br />
* [https://loglangs.wiki The Loglangs Wiki] – an affiliated project that aims to document and foster the development of up-and-coming logical languages<br />
<br />
== Credits ==<br />
Special thanks to:<br />
* [[magı]], for creating a [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wXg6sgKMAGRhvmx0lxTEU1q_igTk0ZlgPkKNt1mOydo/edit List of Useful Toaq Resources] this page was based on.<br />
* [[Zeokueqche]], for authoring the links page on the old (no longer functional) wiki.</div>Uakcihttps://toaq.me/index.php?title=File:Derani.apkg&diff=1846File:Derani.apkg2024-01-27T22:27:02Z<p>Uakci: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Uakcihttps://toaq.me/index.php?title=File:Toaq.apkg&diff=1845File:Toaq.apkg2024-01-27T22:26:51Z<p>Uakci: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Uakcihttps://toaq.me/index.php?title=File:Toaq_532.apkg&diff=1844File:Toaq 532.apkg2024-01-27T22:26:44Z<p>Uakci: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Uakcihttps://toaq.me/index.php?title=File:Toaq_627.apkg&diff=1843File:Toaq 627.apkg2024-01-27T22:26:37Z<p>Uakci: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Uakcihttps://toaq.me/index.php?title=File:Toaq_Grammar.apkg&diff=1842File:Toaq Grammar.apkg2024-01-27T22:26:35Z<p>Uakci: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Uakcihttps://toaq.me/index.php?title=File:Toaq_160.apkg&diff=1841File:Toaq 160.apkg2024-01-27T22:26:19Z<p>Uakci: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Uakcihttps://toaq.me/index.php?title=Prefix_Reform&diff=1813Prefix Reform2023-12-30T22:08:40Z<p>Uakci: reform reform footnote</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Prefix Reform''' is a {{proposal}} by [[uakci]] to change how [[prefix]]es interact with the stems of words.<br />
<br />
Note: the two parts of the proposal, [[#Spelling changes|the spelling changes]] and [[#Pronunciation changes|the pronunciation changes]], could be considered independently of each other.<br />
<br />
==Reasons==<br />
Prefixes as done officially are subtle and hard to teach, especially in terms of pronunciation:<br />
* They interact with vowel length in non-obvious ways: {{t|bộtao}} [bŏʔŏ] vs. {{t|bô'otao}} [boːʔo].<br />
* They’re not computer-friendly to spell. Some combinations, especially ones involving {{t|ı̣}} (that’s a dotless i with an underdot diacritic!), take a lot of effort to input (and Unicode normalizes that character to ị, which is not the same) and display poorly on many people’s systems.<br />
* There's a gotcha involving vowel-initial stems: {{t|e-}} + {{t|ano}} is not {{t|ẹano}} [ˈʔĕʔĕano] but {{t|ẹ'ano}} [ˈʔɛ̆ʔɛ̆ʔaːno]. The latter decomposes as {{t|ea-}} + {{t|no}}! Looking at the IPA transcriptions, we may conclude that the language is actually sensitive to three vowel lengths, [ɛ̆~ĕ ɛ eː].<br />
<br />
==Spelling changes==<br />
Instead of putting the tone mark on the first syllable, put it on the first syllable of the stem. In the case of a word with {{Done|1}}, use {{Tone|6}} as the diacritic. Examples:<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! !! Official !! Proposal<br />
|-<br />
| {{Done|1}} || {{t|mụfoaq}} || {{t|mufòaq}}<br />
|-<br />
| {{Done|2}} || {{t|lạ́maı}} || {{t|lamáı}}<br />
|-<br />
| {{Done|3}} || {{t|tọ̈ꝡa}} <small>{{red|''(invalid word)''}}</small> || {{t|toꝡä}}<br />
|-<br />
| {{Done|4}} || {{t|bộtao}} || {{t|botâo}}<br />
|}<br />
<br />
:<small>The {{t|ẹano}} gotcha does not disappear per se. However, with the prefix reform, it is much easier to see that prefixes are not “special” raku that can be tacked on the front of a word willy-nilly: {{t|e<u>'àno</u>}} is spelled exactly the same as {{t|<u>e'ano</u>}}, just with the stress shifted away from the first syllable. Colloquially, the glottal stop could be omitted – {{t|e<u>àno</u>}} and {{t|buq<u>ùgı</u>}} can only be understood in exactly one way – however, watch out for codal {{t|m}}: {{t|ra<u>màno</u>}} ≠ {{t|ram<u>'àno</u>}}.</small><br />
<br />
==Pronunciation changes==<br />
[[File:PrefixReform.svg|300px|thumb|right|A chart showing the spelling and pronunciation changes. The pink segments are pronounced with unstressed, short, closed vowels (here [kʰʊ̌˧]).]]<br />
<br />
* Stress the first syllable of the stem rather than the prefix. For instance, in {{t|puchumgòıchuq}} ‘was taking medicine’, stress the {{t|-goı-}}, no different than {{t|bugòıchuq}} ‘doesn’t/isn’t taking medicine’ or even just {{t|goıchuq}} ‘take medicine’.<br />
* This stressed syllable should be louder and/or longer and/or more extreme in terms of the tone contour.<br />
* The unstressed prefix syllables should use the weak forms of their core vowels: /u/ goes to [ʊ], /i/ goes to [ɪ], /o/ goes to [ɔ]. These contextual allophones are already used elsewhere in the language – namely, [ɔ] appears in {{t|oı}} /ɔj/, and the three are also triggered before {{t|q}}, e.g., {{t|bıq}} [bɪŋ] and not [biŋ]. Now imagine this is yet another context for them to be weakened. This leads to spicy phonoaesthetics not seen anywhere else in the language: {{t|jıa-}} [dʑɪa]!<br />
* The unstressed prefix syllables should be shortened with regards to regular vowel length: {{t|bunúq}} ‘the non-snake’ could be [bʊ̌nʊq]. (◌̆, the breve, is used to signal “extra-short” vowel length in the IPA.) At any rate, they should sound shorter than the stressed syllable of the stem (so [bʊnuː] for {{t|bunú}} is fine).<br />
* In terms of tone: always pronounce all prefixes with the mid level tone, [˧]. Extra care should be taken not to allow the tone to slide upwards or downwards as it’s pronounced – in other words, avoid *[˧˦] or *[˧˨].<br />
<br />
Illustrative examples:<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! colspan=2 | Official !! colspan=2 | Proposal<br />
|-<br />
| {{t|puchụmtao}} || [ˈpuː˥˨t͡ɕŭʔŭm˨˩tʰaw˩] || {{t|puchumtào}} || [pʊ˧t͡ɕʊm˧ˈtaːw˥˩]<br />
|-<br />
| {{t|jı̣achia}} || [ˈd͡ʑĭʔĭa˥˨t͡ɕia˨˩] || {{t|jıachìa}} || [d͡ʑɪa˧ˈt͡ɕiːa˥˩]<br />
|-<br />
| {{t|lạ́maı bẹ́ıroı}} || [ˈlăʔă˨˦maj˦˥ ˈbɛ̆ʔɛ̆j˨˩rɔj˩] || {{t|lamáı beıróı}} || [la˧ˈmaj˧˥ bɛj˧ˈrɔj˧˩]<br />
|-<br />
| *{{t|tọ̈ꝡa}} || {{red|''(invalid word)''}} || {{t|toꝡä}} || [tʰɔ˧ˈja˧˨ʔa˨˩]<br />
|-<br />
| {{t|jụ̂aqjuaı}} || [ˈd͡ʑŭʔŭaŋ˧˥˨d͡ʑu˨˩aj˩] || {{t|juaqjûaı}} || [d͡ʑʊaŋ˧ˈd͡ʑuː˧˥˨aj˨˩]<br />
|}<br />
<br />
The value of this proposal, apart from more flexibility and less ambiguity, is that stems no longer alternate between stressed and unstressed depending on whether they have prefixes attached to them (think {{t|<u>juı</u>taq}} vs. {{t|bụ<u>juı</u>}}). As another pleasant side effect, poly[[raku]]<nowiki/>ic words in {{done|3}} are now possible (like {{t|äımu}}, which before was ambiguous with the mid-falling allotonal forms of {{t|ạımu}} and {{t|ạ́ımu}}).<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
* [https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/889589074011230230/1113157808934883469 uakci’s original message]<br />
* A “logical conclusion” of the proposal posits that prefixes could be treated as separate words carrying a special [[prefix toneme]].</div>Uakcihttps://toaq.me/index.php?title=Prefix_Reform&diff=1812Prefix Reform2023-12-30T21:57:27Z<p>Uakci: mention spellings like eàno</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Prefix Reform''' is a {{proposal}} by [[uakci]] to change how [[prefix]]es interact with the stems of words.<br />
<br />
Note: the two parts of the proposal, [[#Spelling changes|the spelling changes]] and [[#Pronunciation changes|the pronunciation changes]], could be considered independently of each other.<br />
<br />
==Reasons==<br />
Prefixes as done officially are subtle and hard to teach, especially in terms of pronunciation:<br />
* They interact with vowel length in non-obvious ways: {{t|bộtao}} [bŏʔŏ] vs. {{t|bô'otao}} [boːʔo].<br />
* They’re not computer-friendly to spell. Some combinations, especially ones involving {{t|ı̣}} (that’s a dotless i with an underdot diacritic!), take a lot of effort to input (and Unicode normalizes that character to ị, which is not the same) and display poorly on many people’s systems.<br />
* There's a gotcha involving vowel-initial stems: {{t|e-}} + {{t|ano}} is not {{t|ẹano}} [ˈʔĕʔĕano] but {{t|ẹ'ano}} [ˈʔɛ̆ʔɛ̆ʔaːno]. The latter decomposes as {{t|ea-}} + {{t|no}}! Looking at the IPA transcriptions, we may conclude that the language is actually sensitive to three vowel lengths, [ɛ̆~ĕ ɛ eː].<br />
<br />
==Spelling changes==<br />
Instead of putting the tone mark on the first syllable, put it on the first syllable of the stem. In the case of a word with {{Done|1}}, use {{Tone|6}} as the diacritic. Examples:<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! !! Official !! Proposal<br />
|-<br />
| {{Done|1}} || {{t|mụfoaq}} || {{t|mufòaq}}<br />
|-<br />
| {{Done|2}} || {{t|lạ́maı}} || {{t|lamáı}}<br />
|-<br />
| {{Done|3}} || {{t|tọ̈ꝡa}} <small>{{red|''(invalid word)''}}</small> || {{t|toꝡä}}<br />
|-<br />
| {{Done|4}} || {{t|bộtao}} || {{t|botâo}}<br />
|}<br />
<br />
The {{t|ẹ'ano}} gotcha disappears: the displaced diacritic mark in {{t|eàno}} is enough to communicate that {{t|e}} is a separate morpheme and {{t|ano}} should open with a (now mandatory) glottal stop.<br />
<br />
==Pronunciation changes==<br />
[[File:PrefixReform.svg|300px|thumb|right|A chart showing the spelling and pronunciation changes. The pink segments are pronounced with unstressed, short, closed vowels (here [kʰʊ̌˧]).]]<br />
<br />
* Stress the first syllable of the stem rather than the prefix. For instance, in {{t|puchumgòıchuq}} ‘was taking medicine’, stress the {{t|-goı-}}, no different than {{t|bugòıchuq}} ‘doesn’t/isn’t taking medicine’ or even just {{t|goıchuq}} ‘take medicine’.<br />
* This stressed syllable should be louder and/or longer and/or more extreme in terms of the tone contour.<br />
* The unstressed prefix syllables should use the weak forms of their core vowels: /u/ goes to [ʊ], /i/ goes to [ɪ], /o/ goes to [ɔ]. These contextual allophones are already used elsewhere in the language – namely, [ɔ] appears in {{t|oı}} /ɔj/, and the three are also triggered before {{t|q}}, e.g., {{t|bıq}} [bɪŋ] and not [biŋ]. Now imagine this is yet another context for them to be weakened. This leads to spicy phonoaesthetics not seen anywhere else in the language: {{t|jıa-}} [dʑɪa]!<br />
* The unstressed prefix syllables should be shortened with regards to regular vowel length: {{t|bunúq}} ‘the non-snake’ could be [bʊ̌nʊq]. (◌̆, the breve, is used to signal “extra-short” vowel length in the IPA.) At any rate, they should sound shorter than the stressed syllable of the stem (so [bʊnuː] for {{t|bunú}} is fine).<br />
* In terms of tone: always pronounce all prefixes with the mid level tone, [˧]. Extra care should be taken not to allow the tone to slide upwards or downwards as it’s pronounced – in other words, avoid *[˧˦] or *[˧˨].<br />
<br />
Illustrative examples:<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! colspan=2 | Official !! colspan=2 | Proposal<br />
|-<br />
| {{t|puchụmtao}} || [ˈpuː˥˨t͡ɕŭʔŭm˨˩tʰaw˩] || {{t|puchumtào}} || [pʊ˧t͡ɕʊm˧ˈtaːw˥˩]<br />
|-<br />
| {{t|jı̣achia}} || [ˈd͡ʑĭʔĭa˥˨t͡ɕia˨˩] || {{t|jıachìa}} || [d͡ʑɪa˧ˈt͡ɕiːa˥˩]<br />
|-<br />
| {{t|lạ́maı bẹ́ıroı}} || [ˈlăʔă˨˦maj˦˥ ˈbɛ̆ʔɛ̆j˨˩rɔj˩] || {{t|lamáı beıróı}} || [la˧ˈmaj˧˥ bɛj˧ˈrɔj˧˩]<br />
|-<br />
| *{{t|tọ̈ꝡa}} || {{red|''(invalid word)''}} || {{t|toꝡä}} || [tʰɔ˧ˈja˧˨ʔa˨˩]<br />
|-<br />
| {{t|jụ̂aqjuaı}} || [ˈd͡ʑŭʔŭaŋ˧˥˨d͡ʑu˨˩aj˩] || {{t|juaqjûaı}} || [d͡ʑʊaŋ˧ˈd͡ʑuː˧˥˨aj˨˩]<br />
|}<br />
<br />
The value of this proposal, apart from more flexibility and less ambiguity, is that stems no longer alternate between stressed and unstressed depending on whether they have prefixes attached to them (think {{t|<u>juı</u>taq}} vs. {{t|bụ<u>juı</u>}}). As another pleasant side effect, poly[[raku]]<nowiki/>ic words in {{done|3}} are now possible (like {{t|äımu}}, which before was ambiguous with the mid-falling allotonal forms of {{t|ạımu}} and {{t|ạ́ımu}}).<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
* [https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/889589074011230230/1113157808934883469 uakci’s original message]<br />
* A “logical conclusion” of the proposal posits that prefixes could be treated as separate words carrying a special [[prefix toneme]].</div>Uakcihttps://toaq.me/index.php?title=M%C3%B6&diff=1790Mö2023-12-12T15:17:00Z<p>Uakci: remove last remaining mention of ꝡá. goodbye ꝡá</p>
<hr />
<div>{{t|mö}} is a {{proposal}} that establishes a new variant of {{t|ꝡä}} with slightly different rules regarding [[adverbial]] placement. This solves a long-standing issue with adverbial use.<br />
<br />
== The problem ==<br />
<br />
Given an adverbial in a complex sentence like {{t|Ruaq nháo ꝡä ruqshua <u>râo níchaq</u>}}, should we treat it as belonging to the subclause or the root clause?<br />
<br />
{{Example|Ruaq nháo, <u>ꝡä ruqshua râo níchaq</u>|‘They stated <u>that it rained today</u>.’ (Behavior Ⓐ)}}<br />
{{Example|<u>Ruaq nháo,</u> ꝡä ruqshua, <u>râo níchaq</u>|‘<u>They stated today</u> that it rained.’ (Behavior Ⓑ)}}<br />
<br />
Behavior Ⓑ is useful in that one may always add details to the outer sentence in afterthought – details such as when somebody said something, as in the example – whereas behavior Ⓐ is more consistent, if we think of it as wrapping the simpler sentence {{t|Ruqshua râo níchaq}}.<br />
<br />
[[Hoemaı]] has also stated<ref>https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/646607726817968138/1088465798047207496 {{Transcript|<poem><br />
A core syntactic property of Toaq is that you can take any clause and embed it, as is, inside {{t|ꝡä}}. I would be sad to give up this property.<br />
If A says {{t|Ruqshua râo níchaq}}, and B can no longer say {{t|Dua jí, ꝡä <u>ruqshua râo níchaq</u>}} but has to reshuffle the clause, I wouldn't like that.<br />
[…]<br />
Also my intuition is that trying to ban clause-final AdjunctPs in subordinate clauses is trying to fix the wrong thing by basically saying that V [CP long embed] AdjunctP is more often useful than V [CP AdjunctP], while I would think that the former is gardenpathy and should be rephrased.<br />
</poem>}}</ref> that “[a] core syntactic property of Toaq is that you can take any clause and embed it”, also explicitly dispreferring behavior Ⓑ for being “gardenpathy and [in need of being] rephrased”.<br />
<br />
== The solution: a new kind of {{t|ꝡä}} ==<br />
Toaq has a tendency to branch heavily to the right, so why not allow the rightmost branch special rights? Enter {{t|mö}}. Under the proposal, {{t|ꝡä}} would not capture clause-final adverbials, whereas {{t|mö}} would, but can only appear as the final element in a sentence (save for the [[speech act]] particle).<br />
<br />
In other words, {{t|ꝡä}} makes "small" clauses that can't have trailing adverbials, whereas {{t|mö}} opens a "big" clause that can never be closed.<br />
<br />
{| class=wikitable<br />
|-<br />
!<br />
! ‘that’<br />
! ‘if’<br />
! ‘how much’<br />
|-<br />
! Big clause Ⓐ<br />
| {{t|mö (ꝡa)}}<br />
| {{t|mö ma}}<br />
| {{t|mö tıo}}<br />
|-<br />
! Small clause Ⓑ<br />
| {{t|ꝡä}}<br />
| {{t|mä}}<br />
| {{t|tïo}}<br />
|}<br />
<br />
{{t|mö}} may be used for object incorporation – in which case it turns into {{t|mô}} – so long as it still appears as the final constituent in a sentence. For instance:<br />
<blockquote><poem><br />
{{t|He mıaqgaı jí báq moaq, mô dıabete jí pêaboı báq nıaq saq.}}<br />
<i>I appreciate those who remember that I’ve had diabetes for the last three years.</i><br />
</poem></blockquote><br />
({{t|ꝡâ}} would result in something that parses as <i>I’ve appreciated <u>those who remember that I have diabetes</u> for three years</i>.)<br />
<br />
Both particles still allow for fronted adverbials or pre-subject adverbials, as in {{t|ꝡä/mö râo níchaq nä ruqshua}} or {{t|ꝡä/mö tao râo níchaq jí ní}}.<br />
<br />
In this model, {{t|mö}} acts like indirect speech: any clause of any type, so long as it’s placed as the final phrase in the entire sentence, may be wrapped in a {{t|mö}} and should behave as expected.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references /></div>Uakcihttps://toaq.me/index.php?title=%EA%9D%A0%C3%A1&diff=1789Ꝡá2023-12-12T10:32:56Z<p>Uakci: Uakci moved page Ꝡá to Mö: sicker</p>
<hr />
<div>#REDIRECT [[Mö]]</div>Uakcihttps://toaq.me/index.php?title=M%C3%B6&diff=1788Mö2023-12-12T10:32:56Z<p>Uakci: Uakci moved page Ꝡá to Mö: sicker</p>
<hr />
<div>{{t|Mö}} (also known as {{t|ꝡá}}) is a {{proposal}} that establishes a new variant of {{t|ꝡä}} with slightly different rules regarding [[adverbial]] placement. This solves a long-standing issue with adverbial use.<br />
<br />
== The problem ==<br />
<br />
Given an adverbial in a complex sentence like {{t|Ruaq nháo ꝡä ruqshua <u>râo níchaq</u>}}, should we treat it as belonging to the subclause or the root clause?<br />
<br />
{{Example|Ruaq nháo, <u>ꝡä ruqshua râo níchaq</u>|‘They stated <u>that it rained today</u>.’ (Behavior Ⓐ)}}<br />
{{Example|<u>Ruaq nháo,</u> ꝡä ruqshua, <u>râo níchaq</u>|‘<u>They stated today</u> that it rained.’ (Behavior Ⓑ)}}<br />
<br />
Behavior Ⓑ is useful in that one may always add details to the outer sentence in afterthought – details such as when somebody said something, as in the example – whereas behavior Ⓐ is more consistent, if we think of it as wrapping the simpler sentence {{t|Ruqshua râo níchaq}}.<br />
<br />
[[Hoemaı]] has also stated<ref>https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/646607726817968138/1088465798047207496 {{Transcript|<poem><br />
A core syntactic property of Toaq is that you can take any clause and embed it, as is, inside {{t|ꝡä}}. I would be sad to give up this property.<br />
If A says {{t|Ruqshua râo níchaq}}, and B can no longer say {{t|Dua jí, ꝡä <u>ruqshua râo níchaq</u>}} but has to reshuffle the clause, I wouldn't like that.<br />
[…]<br />
Also my intuition is that trying to ban clause-final AdjunctPs in subordinate clauses is trying to fix the wrong thing by basically saying that V [CP long embed] AdjunctP is more often useful than V [CP AdjunctP], while I would think that the former is gardenpathy and should be rephrased.<br />
</poem>}}</ref> that “[a] core syntactic property of Toaq is that you can take any clause and embed it”, also explicitly dispreferring behavior Ⓑ for being “gardenpathy and [in need of being] rephrased”.<br />
<br />
== The solution: a new kind of {{t|ꝡä}} ==<br />
Toaq has a tendency to branch heavily to the right, so why not allow the rightmost branch special rights? Enter {{t|mö}}. Under the proposal, {{t|ꝡä}} would not capture clause-final adverbials, whereas {{t|mö}} would, but can only appear as the final element in a sentence (save for the [[speech act]] particle).<br />
<br />
In other words, {{t|ꝡä}} makes "small" clauses that can't have trailing adverbials, whereas {{t|mö}} opens a "big" clause that can never be closed.<br />
<br />
{| class=wikitable<br />
|-<br />
!<br />
! ‘that’<br />
! ‘if’<br />
! ‘how much’<br />
|-<br />
! Big clause Ⓐ<br />
| {{t|mö (ꝡa)}}<br />
| {{t|mö ma}}<br />
| {{t|mö tıo}}<br />
|-<br />
! Small clause Ⓑ<br />
| {{t|ꝡä}}<br />
| {{t|mä}}<br />
| {{t|tïo}}<br />
|}<br />
<br />
{{t|mö}} may be used for object incorporation – in which case it turns into {{t|mô}} – so long as it still appears as the final constituent in a sentence. For instance:<br />
<blockquote><poem><br />
{{t|He mıaqgaı jí báq moaq, mô dıabete jí pêaboı báq nıaq saq.}}<br />
<i>I appreciate those who remember that I’ve had diabetes for the last three years.</i><br />
</poem></blockquote><br />
({{t|ꝡâ}} would result in something that parses as <i>I’ve appreciated <u>those who remember that I have diabetes</u> for three years</i>.)<br />
<br />
Both particles still allow for fronted adverbials or pre-subject adverbials, as in {{t|ꝡä/mö râo níchaq nä ruqshua}} or {{t|ꝡä/mö tao râo níchaq jí ní}}.<br />
<br />
In this model, {{t|mö}} acts like indirect speech: any clause of any type, so long as it’s placed as the final phrase in the entire sentence, may be wrapped in a {{t|mö}} and should behave as expected.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references /></div>Uakcihttps://toaq.me/index.php?title=M%C3%B6&diff=1787Mö2023-12-12T10:32:41Z<p>Uakci: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{t|Mö}} (also known as {{t|ꝡá}}) is a {{proposal}} that establishes a new variant of {{t|ꝡä}} with slightly different rules regarding [[adverbial]] placement. This solves a long-standing issue with adverbial use.<br />
<br />
== The problem ==<br />
<br />
Given an adverbial in a complex sentence like {{t|Ruaq nháo ꝡä ruqshua <u>râo níchaq</u>}}, should we treat it as belonging to the subclause or the root clause?<br />
<br />
{{Example|Ruaq nháo, <u>ꝡä ruqshua râo níchaq</u>|‘They stated <u>that it rained today</u>.’ (Behavior Ⓐ)}}<br />
{{Example|<u>Ruaq nháo,</u> ꝡä ruqshua, <u>râo níchaq</u>|‘<u>They stated today</u> that it rained.’ (Behavior Ⓑ)}}<br />
<br />
Behavior Ⓑ is useful in that one may always add details to the outer sentence in afterthought – details such as when somebody said something, as in the example – whereas behavior Ⓐ is more consistent, if we think of it as wrapping the simpler sentence {{t|Ruqshua râo níchaq}}.<br />
<br />
[[Hoemaı]] has also stated<ref>https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/646607726817968138/1088465798047207496 {{Transcript|<poem><br />
A core syntactic property of Toaq is that you can take any clause and embed it, as is, inside {{t|ꝡä}}. I would be sad to give up this property.<br />
If A says {{t|Ruqshua râo níchaq}}, and B can no longer say {{t|Dua jí, ꝡä <u>ruqshua râo níchaq</u>}} but has to reshuffle the clause, I wouldn't like that.<br />
[…]<br />
Also my intuition is that trying to ban clause-final AdjunctPs in subordinate clauses is trying to fix the wrong thing by basically saying that V [CP long embed] AdjunctP is more often useful than V [CP AdjunctP], while I would think that the former is gardenpathy and should be rephrased.<br />
</poem>}}</ref> that “[a] core syntactic property of Toaq is that you can take any clause and embed it”, also explicitly dispreferring behavior Ⓑ for being “gardenpathy and [in need of being] rephrased”.<br />
<br />
== The solution: a new kind of {{t|ꝡä}} ==<br />
Toaq has a tendency to branch heavily to the right, so why not allow the rightmost branch special rights? Enter {{t|mö}}. Under the proposal, {{t|ꝡä}} would not capture clause-final adverbials, whereas {{t|mö}} would, but can only appear as the final element in a sentence (save for the [[speech act]] particle).<br />
<br />
In other words, {{t|ꝡä}} makes "small" clauses that can't have trailing adverbials, whereas {{t|mö}} opens a "big" clause that can never be closed.<br />
<br />
{| class=wikitable<br />
|-<br />
!<br />
! ‘that’<br />
! ‘if’<br />
! ‘how much’<br />
|-<br />
! Big clause Ⓐ<br />
| {{t|mö (ꝡa)}}<br />
| {{t|mö ma}}<br />
| {{t|mö tıo}}<br />
|-<br />
! Small clause Ⓑ<br />
| {{t|ꝡä}}<br />
| {{t|mä}}<br />
| {{t|tïo}}<br />
|}<br />
<br />
{{t|mö}} may be used for object incorporation – in which case it turns into {{t|mô}} – so long as it still appears as the final constituent in a sentence. For instance:<br />
<blockquote><poem><br />
{{t|He mıaqgaı jí báq moaq, mô dıabete jí pêaboı báq nıaq saq.}}<br />
<i>I appreciate those who remember that I’ve had diabetes for the last three years.</i><br />
</poem></blockquote><br />
({{t|ꝡâ}} would result in something that parses as <i>I’ve appreciated <u>those who remember that I have diabetes</u> for three years</i>.)<br />
<br />
Both particles still allow for fronted adverbials or pre-subject adverbials, as in {{t|ꝡä/mö râo níchaq nä ruqshua}} or {{t|ꝡä/mö tao râo níchaq jí ní}}.<br />
<br />
In this model, {{t|mö}} acts like indirect speech: any clause of any type, so long as it’s placed as the final phrase in the entire sentence, may be wrapped in a {{t|mö}} and should behave as expected.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references /></div>Uakcihttps://toaq.me/index.php?title=M%C3%B6&diff=1786Mö2023-12-12T10:32:14Z<p>Uakci: ꝡá → mö; add note about object incorporation</p>
<hr />
<div>{{t|Mö}} (aka {{t|ꝡá}}, more on this below) is a {{proposal}} that establishes a new variant of {{t|ꝡä}} with slightly different rules regarding [[adverbial]] placement. This solves a long-standing issue with adverbial use.<br />
<br />
== The problem ==<br />
<br />
Given an adverbial in a complex sentence like {{t|Ruaq nháo ꝡä ruqshua <u>râo níchaq</u>}}, should we treat it as belonging to the subclause or the root clause?<br />
<br />
{{Example|Ruaq nháo, <u>ꝡä ruqshua râo níchaq</u>|‘They stated <u>that it rained today</u>.’ (Behavior Ⓐ)}}<br />
{{Example|<u>Ruaq nháo,</u> ꝡä ruqshua, <u>râo níchaq</u>|‘<u>They stated today</u> that it rained.’ (Behavior Ⓑ)}}<br />
<br />
Behavior Ⓑ is useful in that one may always add details to the outer sentence in afterthought – details such as when somebody said something, as in the example – whereas behavior Ⓐ is more consistent, if we think of it as wrapping the simpler sentence {{t|Ruqshua râo níchaq}}.<br />
<br />
[[Hoemaı]] has also stated<ref>https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/646607726817968138/1088465798047207496 {{Transcript|<poem><br />
A core syntactic property of Toaq is that you can take any clause and embed it, as is, inside {{t|ꝡä}}. I would be sad to give up this property.<br />
If A says {{t|Ruqshua râo níchaq}}, and B can no longer say {{t|Dua jí, ꝡä <u>ruqshua râo níchaq</u>}} but has to reshuffle the clause, I wouldn't like that.<br />
[…]<br />
Also my intuition is that trying to ban clause-final AdjunctPs in subordinate clauses is trying to fix the wrong thing by basically saying that V [CP long embed] AdjunctP is more often useful than V [CP AdjunctP], while I would think that the former is gardenpathy and should be rephrased.<br />
</poem>}}</ref> that “[a] core syntactic property of Toaq is that you can take any clause and embed it”, also explicitly dispreferring behavior Ⓑ for being “gardenpathy and [in need of being] rephrased”.<br />
<br />
== The solution: a new kind of {{t|ꝡä}} ==<br />
Toaq has a tendency to branch heavily to the right, so why not allow the rightmost branch special rights? Enter {{t|mö}}. Under the proposal, {{t|ꝡä}} would not capture clause-final adverbials, whereas {{t|mö}} would, but can only appear as the final element in a sentence (save for the [[speech act]] particle).<br />
<br />
In other words, {{t|ꝡä}} makes "small" clauses that can't have trailing adverbials, whereas {{t|mö}} opens a "big" clause that can never be closed.<br />
<br />
{| class=wikitable<br />
|-<br />
!<br />
! ‘that’<br />
! ‘if’<br />
! ‘how much’<br />
|-<br />
! Big clause Ⓐ<br />
| {{t|mö (ꝡa)}}<br />
| {{t|mö ma}}<br />
| {{t|mö tıo}}<br />
|-<br />
! Small clause Ⓑ<br />
| {{t|ꝡä}}<br />
| {{t|mä}}<br />
| {{t|tïo}}<br />
|}<br />
<br />
{{t|mö}} may be used for object incorporation – in which case it turns into {{t|mô}} – so long as it still appears as the final constituent in a sentence. For instance:<br />
<blockquote><poem><br />
{{t|He mıaqgaı jí báq moaq, mô dıabete jí pêaboı báq nıaq saq.}}<br />
<i>I appreciate those who remember that I’ve had diabetes for the last three years.</i><br />
</poem></blockquote><br />
({{t|ꝡâ}} would result in something that parses as <i>I’ve appreciated <u>those who remember that I have diabetes</u> for three years</i>.)<br />
<br />
Both particles still allow for fronted adverbials or pre-subject adverbials, as in {{t|ꝡä/mö râo níchaq nä ruqshua}} or {{t|ꝡä/mö tao râo níchaq jí ní}}.<br />
<br />
In this model, {{t|mö}} acts like indirect speech: any clause of any type, so long as it’s placed as the final phrase in the entire sentence, may be wrapped in a {{t|mö}} and should behave as expected.<br />
<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references /></div>Uakcihttps://toaq.me/index.php?title=Conjunction&diff=1784Conjunction2023-12-06T20:45:04Z<p>Uakci: {verb,noun} {phrase → form}</p>
<hr />
<div>A '''conjunction''' is a [[particle]] that combines two constituents (grammatical units) into one.<br />
<br />
For example, {{t|ru}} “and”, {{t|ra}} “either/or”, and {{t|roı}} “together with” are all conjunctions.<br />
<br />
== Logical conjunctions ==<br />
A '''logical''' conjunction is one that expands to some logical operation on the truth values you get when committing to either conjugand and parsing the rest of the [[clause]].<br />
<br />
For example, {{t|X ru Y}} is a logical conjunction, corresponding to a logical “AND” operation on the “X sentence” and the “Y sentence”: {{t|Bỏ <u>jí ru nháo</u> sa pỉano}} is interpreted as {{t|(Bỏ jí sa pỉano) & (Bỏ nháo sa pỉano)}}.<br />
<br />
The logical conjunctions are: {{t|ru}} “and”, {{t|ra}} “either/or”, {{t|ro}} “xor”, and {{t|rı}} “which one?”.<br />
<br />
They can combine noun forms, verb forms, adverbials, prepositions, relative clauses, and statements: see the [https://toaq.net/refgram/22/ refgram].<br />
<br />
=== On combining verb forms ===<br />
Logical conjunctions of verb forms have “combine the sentences” semantics ''inside their would-be definition'', rather than causing a bifurcation in the clause they're in.<br />
<br />
For example, {{t|bảo ru kủo}} is a new verb form meaning “___ is white, and it is black”.<br />
<br />
So {{t|Nẻo sa bảo ru kủo tóq}} claims that there is a black-and-white thing on the table. We do not read it as {{t|(Nẻo sa bảo tóq) & (Nẻo sa kủo tóq)}}. If this meaning is desired it can be recovered by combining noun forms instead: {{t|Nẻo sa bảo ru <u>sa</u> kủo tóq}}.<br />
<br />
=== On combining statements ===<br />
To say “I work and you rest”, you might try {{t|Gủaı jí ru sẻa súq}}. But this is incorrect: {{t|jí ru sẻa}} is a [[noun form]] meaning “that which is me and rests”. (It's the {{tone|2}} tone-conjugation of the conjoined [[verb form]] {{t|jỉ ru sẻa}}.)<br />
<br />
Statements are correctly combined by placing the statement-terminator particle {{t|na}} in front of the conjunction.<br />
<br />
This particle used to see more uses that have been superseded by {{t|cy}} and {{t|ky}}, and now this is its only function.<br />
<br />
{{Example|Gủaı jí <u>na ru</u> sẻa súq da.|I work and you rest.}}<br />
<br />
=== On adverbial scope ===<br />
🚧 Does {{t|Jỏe bũ jí ru súq}} have a different meaning from {{t|Jỏe jí ru súq bũ}}? [http://toaq.herokuapp.com/ Mỉ mỉu] says so:<br />
<br />
{{Example|Jỏe bũ jí ru súq.|It's not true that [I'm skilled and you're skilled].}}<br />
{{Example|Jỏe jí ru súq bũ.|I'm not skilled, and you're not skilled.}}<br />
<br />
== Non-logical conjunctions ==<br />
A '''non-logical''' conjunction is one that combines two noun forms into a new noun form, without such “logical expansion” semantics.<br />
<br />
The only non-logical conjunction in standard Toaq is {{t|roı}} “together with”, which takes the [[plural logic]] “sum” of its conjugands.<br />
<br />
{{Example|Hỉe <u>súq roı jí</u> sa shỉ cẻa da.|You and I (together) carry a bag.}}<br />
<br />
Compare:<br />
<br />
{{Example|Hỉe <u>súq ru jí</u> sa shỉ cẻa da.|You carry a bag, and I carry a bag.}}<br />
<br />
Joining things that aren't noun forms with {{t|roı}} is a bit semantically dubious. Possibly, joining statements with {{t|roı}} means something like claiming a “sum event” of two things happening together, maybe in the same time/place/context, rather than claiming that one happens and the other happens.<br />
<br />
== Prefix usage ==<br />
Instead of “X conjunction Y”, you can say “{{t|to}} conjunction X {{t|to}} Y”, which has the conjunction in front of both arguments, yielding a structure similar to “either X or Y” or “both X and Y” in English.<br />
<br />
== Associativity ==<br />
Infix conjunctions, perhaps surprisingly to Lojbanists, associate (i.e. group) rightwards.<br />
<br />
{{Example|nủı ru lủe ra bảo ro dẻ|small AND (yellow OR (white XOR pretty))}}<br />
<br />
You can use {{t|to}} as "parentheses".<br />
<br />
{{Example|to ra nủı ru lủe to bảo ro dẻ|(small AND yellow) OR (white XOR pretty))}}<br />
<br />
== See also ==<br />
* [https://toaq.net/refgram/22/ ''Coordination''] in the [[refgram]].</div>Uakcihttps://toaq.me/index.php?title=Comparison_of_Lojban_and_Toaq&diff=1782Comparison of Lojban and Toaq2023-12-06T20:43:52Z<p>Uakci: noun phrase → noun form</p>
<hr />
<div>{| class="wikitable"<br />
|+ Comparison of Lojban and Toaq<br />
! Lojban<br />
! Toaq<br />
|-<br />
| Stress segments words || [[Tones]], stress, and vowel length segment words<br />
|-<br />
| .i begins sentences|| [[Illocution]] marker ends sentence<br />
|-<br />
| Usually SVO: .i mi {{green|cusku}} ra do || VSO: {{t|{{green|Kuq}} jí hóq súq da.}}<br />
|-<br />
| brivla, sumti, cmavo || [[Verb]], [[noun form]], [[particle]]<br />
|-<br />
| cnima'o: .ui .ua .ue || [[Interjection]]: {{t|aja, â, obe!}}<br />
|-<br />
| vocatives: coi ki'e || [[Interjection]]: {{t|jadı, kıjı!}}<br />
|-<br />
| gismu || [[Root]]<br />
|-<br />
| lujvo || [[Compound word]]<br />
|-<br />
| No equivalent, jvajvo-ish || [[Serial verb]]<br />
|-<br />
| doi ''sumti'' || {{t|hóı}} ''NP''<br />
|-<br />
| zo .djan. cmene la .djan. || {{t|Chua shú «Jaq» mí Jaq.}}<br />
|-<br />
| Singular logic and "xorlo" || [[Plural logic]] <br />
|-<br />
| su'o, ro, lo, le… || No equivalent, instead…<br />
|-<br />
| [https://solpahi.wordpress.com/2016/09/25/a-simpler-quantifier-logic/ su'oi, ro'oi, ro'oi pa, ru'oi] || [[Determiner]]s: {{t|sá, tú, túq}}<br />
|-<br />
| lo'au, ri'oi, [https://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/dau'u dau'u] || [[Determiner]]s: {{t|ké}}, {{t|hú}}, {{Done|2}}<br />
|-<br />
| BY, ko'V, vo'V || [[Anaphoric pronoun]]s, {{Done|2}}<br />
|-<br />
| No real equivalent, lo'e-ish || [[Kind]]s and {{t|báq}}<br />
|-<br />
| prenex zo'u stmt || [[Topic]] {{t|bï}} comment, [[Cleft verb]] {{t|nä}}<br />
|-<br />
<!-- ! colspan=2 | Clauses<br />
|- --><br />
| lo du'u … || [[Content clause]]: {{t|ꝡä}} …<br />
|-<br />
| lo nu … || [[Event]] accessor: {{t|é}} …<br />
|-<br />
| lo ka … ce'u … || [[Property]]: {{t|lä}} … já …<br />
|-<br />
| poi … ke'a … || [[Restrictive relative clause]]: {{t|wë}} … {{t|hóa}} …<br />
|-<br />
| noi … ke'a … || [[Incidental relative clause]]: {{t|jü}} … {{t|hóa}} …<br />
|-<br />
| lo poi'i … ke'a … || [[Free relative]]: {{t|ꝡé}} … {{t|hóa}} …<br />
|-<br />
<!--! colspan=2 | Adverbs<br />
|- --><br />
| [https://solpahi.wordpress.com/2016/10/13/noiha/ noi'a] || [[Adverbial]]s {{Done|4}}, namely:<br />
|-<br />
| — noi'a melbi || [[Adverb]]: {{t|dê}}<br />
|-<br />
| — noi'a zvati be lo purdi || [[Preposition]]: {{t|tî sóaq}}<br />
|-<br />
| noi'o'a fengu || [[Subject-sharing adverbial]]: {{t|fêı}}<br />
|-<br />
| ja ji je jonai jo'u || {{t|ra rı ru ro roı}}<br />
|-<br />
| lu … li'u || {{t|mó … teo}}<br />
|-<br />
| to … toi || {{t|kïo … kı}}<br />
|-<br />
| pareci [https://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/mei'i mei'i] || {{t|fue guheı saq}} (hundred two-ten three)<br />
|-<br />
| gismu have max. 5 places || Roots have max. 3<br />
|-<br />
| se, te, ve, xe || [[Passivizer]]s<br />
|-<br />
! colspan=2 | Absent in Toaq:<br />
|-<br />
| rafsi || Compounds retain unabbreviated word forms<br />
|-<br />
| zi'evla / fu'ivla || Not distinguished from [[root]]s<br />
|-<br />
| tanru || No equivalent. Use {{t|po}} or [[serial]]s<br />
|-<br />
| mekso || Use normal grammar or math notation<br />
|-<br />
| lerfu || No special grammar<br />
|-<br />
| ga … gi … || No forethought connectives<br />
|-<br />
| zo'e, fV || Absent, must fill places in order<br />
|-<br />
| ka'e, na'o, pu, zi, na… || Auxiliary verbs are just verbs<br />
|-<br />
| sumti tcita || Use any verb as a [[preposition]]<br />
|-<br />
| lo'u, le'u, zoi || See [[Foreign quotation]]<br />
|}</div>Uakcihttps://toaq.me/index.php?title=Verb&diff=1781Verb2023-12-06T20:43:29Z<p>Uakci: add todo</p>
<hr />
<div>{{TODO|this is currently at odds with [[Verb form, noun form]]}}<br />
<br />
In Toaq, a '''verb''' ({{t|jeotoame}}) is any phrase with the same grammatical behavior as a single [[atomic verb]].<br />
<br />
A verb is either:<br />
* A single-word [[atomic verb]]. (See that article for why "young" is a verb in Toaq.)<br />
** {{t|Nıo nháo da.}} "They are young."<br />
* An [[analytic verb]], consisting of more than one word:<br />
** An '''object-incorporating verb''' ({{t|po, mea, jeı}}) followed its incorporated object [[noun phrase]].<br />
*** {{t|Mea chíeme nháo da.}} "They are among the class."<br />
** A '''name verb''' ({{t|mı, mıru, mımo}}) followed by a name [[phrase]] ({{T|mımo}} has to be closed by {{T|ga}})<br />
*** {{t|Mı Sara nháo da.}} "They are Sara."<br />
** A '''free relative''' construction: {{t|ꝡe …}}, where the phrase's [[resumptive pronoun]] {{t|hóa}} is the argument of the verb.<br />
*** {{t|Ꝡe leı sea hóa, nháo da.}} "They are someone who rarely rests."<br />
** A [[serial verb]], made by juxtaposing a non-serial verb with another verb.<br />
*** {{t|Pỏ súq ga chỉetuache nháo da.}} "They are your teacher".<br />
**** The common {{t|pỏ X ga Y}} "is X's Y" construction is a serial verb of {{t|pỏ X ga}} ("is X's") and {{t|Y}}. The {{t|ga}} is mandatory in this position, otherwise {{t|súq chỉetuache}} would be interpreted as a serial verb conjugated in {{tone|2}}.<br />
<br />
When tone-conjugating a verb, only the {{tone|4}} on the first word changes to the new tone:<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! {{tone|2}}<br />
! {{tone|3}}<br />
! {{tone|4}}<br />
! {{tone|5}}<br />
|-<br />
| {{t|nío}}<br>the young one<br />
| {{t|nïo hóa}} <span style="opacity:0.5">{{t|cy}}</span><br>…who is young<br />
| {{t|nỉo}}<br>is young<br />
| {{t|nîo (súq)}} <span style="opacity:0.5">{{t|cy}}</span><br>that (you) are young<br />
|-<br />
| {{t|méa chíeme}}<br>the one among the class<br />
| {{t|mëa chíeme hóa}} <span style="opacity:0.5">{{t|cy}}</span><br>…who is among the class<br />
| {{t|mẻa chíeme}}<br>is among the class<br />
| {{t|mêa chíeme (súq)}} <span style="opacity:0.5">{{t|cy}}</span><br>that (you) are among the class<br />
|-<br />
| {{t|mí Sảra}}<br>(the) Sara<br />
| {{t|mï Sảra hóa}} <span style="opacity:0.5">{{t|cy}}</span><br>…who is Sara<br />
| {{t|mỉ Sảra}}<br>is Sara<br />
| {{t|mî Sảra (súq)}} <span style="opacity:0.5">{{t|cy}}</span><br>that (you) are Sara<br />
|-<br />
| {{t|lú sẻa hóa dãqleı ky}}<br>the one who rarely rests<br />
| {{t|lü sẻa hóa dãqleı ky hóa}} <span style="opacity:0.5">{{t|cy}}</span><br>…who is someone who rarely rests<ref>It's simpler to just say {{t|sëa hóa dãqleı}}, so this one isn't very useful.</ref><br />
| {{t|lủ sẻa hóa dãqleı ky}}<br>is someone who rarely rests<br />
| {{t|lû sẻa hóa dãqleı ky (súq)}} <span style="opacity:0.5">{{t|cy}}</span><br>that (you) are someone who rarely rests<ref>Here, too, it's simpler to just say: {{t|sêa súq dãqleı}}.</ref><br />
|-<br />
| {{t|jóaı kảqshıa}}<br>the glasses-seeker<br />
| {{t|jöaı kảqshıa hóa}} <span style="opacity:0.5">{{t|cy}}</span><br>…who seeks glasses<br />
| {{t|jỏaı kảqshıa}}<br>seeks glasses<br />
| {{t|jôaı kảqshıa (súq)}} <span style="opacity:0.5">{{t|cy}}</span><br>that (you) seek glasses<br />
|}</div>Uakcihttps://toaq.me/index.php?title=Content_clause&diff=1780Content clause2023-12-06T20:42:54Z<p>Uakci: noun phrase → noun form</p>
<hr />
<div>A '''content clause''' is a subclause that acts like a [[noun form]].<br />
<br />
For example, the phrases in bold here are content clauses:<br />
# It's good '''that you're here'''.<br />
# I hope '''it won't rain'''.<br />
# '''That she apologized''' doesn't change anything.<br />
<br />
In Toaq, a simple content clause is made using {{Tone|5}}.<br />
<br />
Placing {{Tone|5}} on a verb starts a content clause, which lasts until the end of the clause it's in, or until the [[terminator]] {{t|cy}}.<br />
<br />
{{Example|Zảı jí {{green|jîa bủ rủqshua}} da.|I hope {{green|that it won't rain}}.}}<br />
{{Example|Cả {{green|shêokuq nháo cy}} sıa sủao da.|{{green|That she apologized [END]}} causes nothing important.}}<br />
<br />
A content clause can also be made using the complementizer {{t|lâ}}, in which case it can contain a [[prenex]]:<br />
<br />
{{Example|Zảı jí {{green|lâ pátı bı, bủ rủqshua}} da.|I hope {{green|that as for the party, it doesn't rain}}.}}<br />
<br />
== Properties ==<br />
'''[[Property|Properties]]''' are expressed in Toaq as {{tone|5}} content clauses containing {{t|ja}}.<br />
<br />
These correspond roughly to "non-finite" clauses in English that lack a subject, formed using "to" or "-ing":<br />
<br />
{{Example|Sủe nháo mí Ảna {{green|sôa ja fúy}} da.|He asked Ana {{green|to help him}}.}}<br />
{{Example|Rỉu jí {{green|gûaı tì núokua ja}} da.|I resume {{green|working in the bedroom}}.}}<br />
{{Example|Kủaı jí {{green|mâı sa pỏq ja}} da.|I desire {{green|to be loved by someone}}.}}<br />
<br />
See the [[property|'''main article''']] for more information.<br />
<br />
== Interrogative content clauses ==<br />
<br />
The above content clauses are all declarative content clauses. There are also interrogative content clauses — better known as [[indirect question]]s.<br />
<br />
# I know '''what you did last night'''.<br />
# I wonder '''whether it will rain'''.<br />
<br />
In Toaq, these are {{tone|5}} clauses containing a question word. See the [[indirect question|'''main article''']] for more information.</div>Uakcihttps://toaq.me/index.php?title=Complementizer_phrase&diff=1779Complementizer phrase2023-12-06T20:42:40Z<p>Uakci: Redirected page to Content clause</p>
<hr />
<div>#REDIRECT [[Content clause]]</div>Uakcihttps://toaq.me/index.php?title=Focus,_topic,_cleft&diff=1778Focus, topic, cleft2023-12-06T20:42:11Z<p>Uakci: noun phrase → noun form</p>
<hr />
<div>{{orange|[[Focus|{{t|kú}}]]}}, {{green|[[Topic|{{t|bï}}]]}}, and {{blue|[[Cleft|{{t|nä}}]]}} are three particles whose purpose is easily confused. Let’s examine the ways in which they differ.<br />
<br />
== Main use ==<br />
{{Example|1=Báq shamu {{green|bï}}, mí Laqme {{blue|nä}} soqcho hóa {{orange|kú}} báq soe.|2={{green|As for}} apples, Laqme<span style="font-size: 250%; line-height: 0;">{{blue|,}}</span> she likes {{orange|''sour''}} ones best.}}<br />
<br />
In this sentence…<br />
* {{green|{{t|bï}}}} is a [[topic]] marker. It identifies what the sentence is about. Here, it tells the listener that we're making some point about apples.<br />
* {{blue|{{t|nä}}}} is a [[cleft]] verb. It purely helps us rearrange words when we feel like it. Here, it achieves a pseudo SVO word order.<br />
* {{orange|{{t|kú}}}} is a [[focus]] marker. It identifies the new or contrasting information in the sentence: What apples does Laqme like? ''Sour'' apples.<br />
<br />
== Syntax ==<br />
* The syntax of {{green|{{t|bï}}}} is: {{t|{{small caps|topic}} bï {{small caps|comment}}}}.<br />
** {{small caps|topic}} must be a [[definite]] [[noun form]], like <i>the cat</i> or <i>that I love you</i>. If you want to refer back to the topic, you may not use {{t|hóa}}, but you may use any of the other strategies available to you, like {{t|máq}} or {{t|hụ́ꝡa}}.<br />
* The word {{blue|{{t|nä}}}} can be used to front [[noun form]]s and [[adverbial]]s.<br />
** When fronting a noun form, the syntax is {{t|{{small caps|noun form}} nä {{small caps|relative clause}}}}. The [[relative clause]] must [[anaphora|refer back]] to the noun form, either using {{t|hóa}} or an appropriate [[pronoun]] like {{t|hó}}.<br />
** When fronting an adverbial, the syntax is {{t|{{small caps|adverbial}} nä {{small caps|clause}}}}. In this usage, {{t|hóa}} is not used because there’s nothing to refer back to.<br />
* The word {{orange|{{t|kú}}}} goes in front of the focused piece of information. To focus a single word instead of a whole constituent, you can use the prefix form {{orange|{{t|ku-}}}}. See [[Simple Focus]].<br />
<br />
== Gotchas ==<br />
* Focus is often rendered as an English cleft in translation: {{t|Shao paı jí <u>kú súq</u>}} <i><u>It’s you who</u> I want to be friends with</i>. However, Toaq clefts do not impart focus: {{t|Súq nä shao paı jí hóa}} is just another way of saying {{t|Shao paı jí súq}}. You may, however, use the two features in tandem: {{t|Kú súq nä shao paı jí hóa}}.<br />
* For noun forms, {{t|bï}} does not bind {{t|hóa}}. You must use another anaphoric pronoun if you want to refer back to the topic. The crucial difference is that {{t|bï}}’s complement, the topic established, is not required to appear in the clause! So for example, this is valid Toaq (and valid English, although some languages like Japanese like this pattern better than English does) and the extra specification in square brackets is not required at all:<br />
*: {{t|Báq kası bï, he duq garabıa jí}} <i>{{t|[gêm máq]}}</i>{{t|.}}<br />
*: <i>As for walnuts, I tend to get nausea <i>[from them]</i>.</i></div>Uakcihttps://toaq.me/index.php?title=Verb_form&diff=1777Verb form2023-12-06T20:40:41Z<p>Uakci: </p>
<hr />
<div>A '''verb form''' is any string of words that can be placed in [[verb]] position. In Toaq, this can be:<br />
<br />
* an atomic (“single-word”) verb {{gray|like {{t|rua}} <i>to be a flower</i>}};<br />
* an atomic verb taking an [[object incorporation|incorporated object]] {{gray|like {{t|bue jî}} <i>to be my house</i> or {{t|chua sâ ruaı}} <i>to be the name of a royal</i>}};<br />
* a [[predicatizer]] taking a [[noun form]] {{gray|like {{t|po jí}} <i>to be mine / of me</i> or {{t|mea chóaq}} <i>to be among the guests</i>}};<br />
* a [[quote]] {{gray|like {{t|shu ‹kası›}} <i>to be the word ‘kası’</i> or {{t|mı Dıao}} <i>to be Dıao; to be named ‘Dıao’</i>}};<br />
* an {{t|[[ë]]}}-phrase {{gray|like {{t|ë dea súq múao}} <i>to be your kicking a tree; to be an event of you kicking a tree</i>}};<br />
* a [[serial verb]] composing any of the above {{gray|like {{t|leo maı}} <i>to try to love</i> or {{t|du ë cheo soı sá shụqguamea}} <i>to seem like a fight between plain civilians</i>}};<br />
* a [[conjunction]] of atomic verbs {{gray|like {{t|de ru nuı}} <i>to be beautiful and small</i>}};<br />
* a [[focus]]ing of an atomic verb {{gray|like {{t|jụaqrıatua}} <i>even to open; to go so far as to open<i>}}.<br />
<br />
We use the phrase <i>verb form</i> in place of <i>verb, verb phrase, predicate</i> for reasons of clarity – see technical discussion at [[Verb form, noun form]].</div>Uakcihttps://toaq.me/index.php?title=Verb_form&diff=1776Verb form2023-12-06T20:40:26Z<p>Uakci: phrase glosses as infinitives to minimize confusion; add atomic-verb-with-incorporated-object to bucket list</p>
<hr />
<div>A '''verb form''' is any string of words that can be placed in [[verb]] position. In Toaq, this can be:<br />
<br />
* an atomic (“single-word”) verb {{gray|like {{t|rua}} <i>to be a flower</i>}};<br />
* an atomic verb taking an [[incorporated object]] {{gray|like {{t|bue jî}} <i>to be my house</i> or {{t|chua sâ ruaı}} <i>to be the name of a royal</i>}};<br />
* a [[predicatizer]] taking a [[noun form]] {{gray|like {{t|po jí}} <i>to be mine / of me</i> or {{t|mea chóaq}} <i>to be among the guests</i>}};<br />
* a [[quote]] {{gray|like {{t|shu ‹kası›}} <i>to be the word ‘kası’</i> or {{t|mı Dıao}} <i>to be Dıao; to be named ‘Dıao’</i>}};<br />
* an {{t|[[ë]]}}-phrase {{gray|like {{t|ë dea súq múao}} <i>to be your kicking a tree; to be an event of you kicking a tree</i>}};<br />
* a [[serial verb]] composing any of the above {{gray|like {{t|leo maı}} <i>to try to love</i> or {{t|du ë cheo soı sá shụqguamea}} <i>to seem like a fight between plain civilians</i>}};<br />
* a [[conjunction]] of atomic verbs {{gray|like {{t|de ru nuı}} <i>to be beautiful and small</i>}};<br />
* a [[focus]]ing of an atomic verb {{gray|like {{t|jụaqrıatua}} <i>even to open; to go so far as to open<i>}}.<br />
<br />
We use the phrase <i>verb form</i> in place of <i>verb, verb phrase, predicate</i> for reasons of clarity – see technical discussion at [[Verb form, noun form]].</div>Uakcihttps://toaq.me/index.php?title=Verb_form,_noun_form&diff=1775Verb form, noun form2023-12-06T20:37:07Z<p>Uakci: </p>
<hr />
<div>We shall use the terms '''[[verb form]]''' and '''[[noun form]]''' to refer to any strings of words (grammatical productions) that can function as “verbs” and “nouns” respectively, with the simplistic, teachable idea in mind that:<br />
<br />
: {{small caps|clause}} ≔ {{small caps|verb form}} + zero or more {{small caps|noun form}}s<br />
<br />
This reflects the way we think about the composition of clauses, also minding the fact that the grammar puts the verb form at the very front and all the noun forms after it in one sequence. It also saves us from the confusion.<br />
<br />
== The confusion ==<br />
There are multiple layers of abstraction in play, and confusing them eventually leads to confusion. Let’s enumerate the layers with the example sentence {{t|He leo maı jí báq paı âq da}} <i>I try to love my friends</i>:<br />
<br />
[[File:He leo maı jí báq paı âq.png|thumb|A grossly oversimplified look at the verb and verb-related phrases in the example sentence. Each blue node is a full contiguous phrase. Notice how there is no phrase that corresponds to <code>"he leo maı"</code>; rather, those three words are scattered across the tree and intermingled with determiner phrases. This is why we can’t call {{t|he leo maı}} a verb phrase with a clean conscience.]]<br />
<br />
[[File:He leo maı.png|thumb|Innately conceptualizing the verb form {{t|he leo maı}} as a (discontiguous) template with slots for two nounlikes.]]<br />
<br />
* At the '''phonetic/textual''' level, we have strings of text (or sounds) that are conceptualized as verb-like or noun-like phrase-like things. This is where we identify '''verb forms''' and '''noun forms'''.<br />
*: We think of the string <code>"he leo maı"</code> as a binary “verb” or “predicate” followed by two “arguments”, <code>"jí"</code> and <code>"báq paı âq"</code>. We innately associate these fragments with “predicates” or “entities” at a pre-syntactic level.<br />
*:: You should be alarmed by the amount of scarequotes in this bullet point.<br />
*<br />
* At the '''syntactic''' level, we have phrases, such as '''verb phrases''', '''determiner phrases''' and similar. These are continuous trees of nested phrases, but the phonetic/textual content they represent is intermingled in a perhaps confusing way (a linguistic process known as ''movement'' sets everything back into place, giving <code>"he leo maı"</code> an illusion of continuity).<br />
*: The problem here is that <i>verb phrase</i> isn’t a very intuitive concept to grasp or manipulate. <code>"he leo maı"</code> from before becomes: a fragment of a modality phrase ({{t|he}}) and two fragments of verb phrases ({{t|leo}} without its object and {{t|maı}} without its object). The full verb phrases in the example are discontinuous (peek at the diagram on the right): {{t|maı … báq paı âq}}, {{t|leo maı … báq paı âq}}, and finally {{t|leo maı jí báq paı âq}}. <code>"leo maı"</code> does not correspond to any one verb phrase, but fragments of four verb phrases torn out of a so-called '''verbal complex''' and stitched together to give an illusion of contiguousness.<br />
*:<br />
*: Similarly when noun forms are concerned, no one type of syntactic phrase corresponds to them: there are determiner phrases, complementizer phrases, but also focus phrases ({{t|kú jí}}), coordination phrases ({{t|jí róı súq}}), …. The list goes on. One could theoretically refer to them all collectively as “phrases acting nominally”, but this does not roll off the tongue whatsoever.<br />
*<br />
* At the '''semantic/denotational''' level, there are unary '''predicates/functions''' applied to various types of '''arguments'''.<br />
*: Here, in turn, we find that not only has <code>"leo maı"</code> ever corresponded to one “predicate”, even though we like to colloquially think of it as a “verb” with an effective arity of 2 and the definition <i>{{x}} tries to love {{x}}</i>. Also, the actual denotation of the entire verbal complex is much grosser than a binary function, lol.<br />
<br />
To recap: you could think of Toaq as a pipeline that takes a '''string''' to a '''tree''', and then to a '''logical form'''. We often find the most comfort talking about the strings as though they were parts of trees or even the trees themselves, and as though they were simplistic predicates that applied to a minimal amount of arguments in a neat way. In other words, we like to equivocate – and because of this, referring to verb forms as <i>predicates</i> or <i>verb phrases</i>, for instance, is only temporary relief for the learner before they dive into the deep syntax or (god forbid) the semantics and find that nothing that they’ve learned corresponds to what verb phrases and predicates actually look like.<br />
<br />
So the real purpose of saying <i>verb form</i> instead of, say, <i>verb phrase</i> is '''not to use deep syntax terms to describe (and teach) surface-level Toaq'''. We want to match simple explanations with equally simple terms while remaining correct, and this is the solution we’re taking – save for pulling random Toaq roots out of our hat (like Lojban does with <i>sumti</i> and <i>selbri</i> and about everything else under the sun).</div>Uakcihttps://toaq.me/index.php?title=Noun_form&diff=1774Noun form2023-12-06T20:36:28Z<p>Uakci: </p>
<hr />
<div>A '''noun form''' is any string of words that can appear as an argument to a [[verb form]]. In Toaq, this can be:<br />
<br />
* a [[determiner phrase]] {{gray|like {{t|cáo}} <i>the season</i> or {{t|ké pıo}} <i>that one rock</i> or {{t|tú}} <i>everything</i> or {{t|gú ë gıtoı súq jí}} <i>the two times you treated me well</i>}};<br />
* a [[pronoun]] {{gray|like {{t|máq}} <i>it (inanimate)</i> or {{t|hụ́la}} <i>the aforementioned {{t|lä}}-clause</i>}};<br />
* a [[complementizer phrase]] (aka a subclause) {{gray|like {{t|ꝡä nıtı súq}} <i>that you are here</i> or {{t|mä loq río}} <i>if it [the air]’s hot</i> or {{t|lä sı báq bụzao puı já}} <i>to be stared at by many strangers</i>}};<br />
* any [[conjunction]] of any of the above {{gray|like {{t|jí róı súq}} <i>me and you</i>}};<br />
* any [[focus]] phrase wrapping any of the above {{gray|like {{t|tó dóte}} <i>only the gift</i>}}.<br />
<br />
We use the phrase <i>noun form</i> in place of <i>noun, noun phrase, argument</i> for reasons of clarity – see technical discussion at [[Verb form, noun form]].</div>Uakcihttps://toaq.me/index.php?title=Verb_form&diff=1773Verb form2023-12-06T20:36:17Z<p>Uakci: </p>
<hr />
<div>A '''verb form''' is any string of words that can be placed in [[verb]] position. In Toaq, this can be:<br />
<br />
* an atomic (“single-word”) verb {{gray|like {{t|rua}} <i>flower</i>}};<br />
* a [[predicatizer]] taking a [[noun form]] {{gray|like {{t|po jí}} <i>of me</i> or {{t|mea chóaq}} <i>among the guests</i>}};<br />
* a [[quote]] {{gray|like {{t|shu ‹kası›}} <i>the word ‘kası’</i> or {{t|mı Dıao}} <i>Dıao; one named ‘Dıao’</i>}};<br />
* an {{t|[[ë]]}}-phrase {{gray|like {{t|ë dea súq múao}} <i>your kicking a tree</i>}};<br />
* a [[serial verb]] composing any of the above {{gray|like {{t|leo maı}} <i>try to love</i> or {{t|du ë cheo soı sá shụqguamea}} <i>seem like a fight between plain civilians</i>}};<br />
* a [[conjunction]] of atomic verbs {{gray|like {{t|de ru nuı}} <i>beautiful and small</i>}};<br />
* a [[focus]]ing of an atomic verb {{gray|like {{t|jụaqrıatua}} <i>even open; go so far as to open<i>}}.<br />
<br />
We use the phrase <i>verb form</i> in place of <i>verb, verb phrase, predicate</i> for reasons of clarity – see technical discussion at [[Verb form, noun form]].</div>Uakcihttps://toaq.me/index.php?title=Verb_form,_noun_form&diff=1772Verb form, noun form2023-12-06T20:34:19Z<p>Uakci: shorten abstract; link to verb form and noun form</p>
<hr />
<div>We shall use the terms '''[[verb form]]''' and '''[[noun form]]''' to refer to any strings of words that can function as “verbs” and “nouns” respectively, with the simplistic, teachable idea in mind that:<br />
<br />
: {{small caps|clause}} ≔ {{small caps|verb form}} + zero or more {{small caps|noun form}}s<br />
<br />
This reflects the way we think about the composition of clauses, also minding the fact that the grammar puts the verb form at the very front and all the noun forms after it in one sequence. It also saves us from the confusion.<br />
<br />
== The confusion ==<br />
There are multiple layers of abstraction in play, and confusing them eventually leads to confusion. Let’s enumerate the layers with the example sentence {{t|He leo maı jí báq paı âq da}} <i>I try to love my friends</i>:<br />
<br />
[[File:He leo maı jí báq paı âq.png|thumb|A grossly oversimplified look at the verb and verb-related phrases in the example sentence. Each blue node is a full contiguous phrase. Notice how there is no phrase that corresponds to <code>"he leo maı"</code>; rather, those three words are scattered across the tree and intermingled with determiner phrases. This is why we can’t call {{t|he leo maı}} a verb phrase with a clean conscience.]]<br />
<br />
[[File:He leo maı.png|thumb|Innately conceptualizing the verb form {{t|he leo maı}} as a (discontiguous) template with slots for two nounlikes.]]<br />
<br />
* At the '''phonetic/textual''' level, we have strings of text (or sounds) that are conceptualized as verb-like or noun-like phrase-like things. This is where we identify '''verb forms''' and '''noun forms'''.<br />
*: We think of the string <code>"he leo maı"</code> as a binary “verb” or “predicate” followed by two “arguments”, <code>"jí"</code> and <code>"báq paı âq"</code>. We innately associate these fragments with “predicates” or “entities” at a pre-syntactic level.<br />
*:: You should be alarmed by the amount of scarequotes in this bullet point.<br />
*<br />
* At the '''syntactic''' level, we have phrases, such as '''verb phrases''', '''determiner phrases''' and similar. These are continuous trees of nested phrases, but the phonetic/textual content they represent is intermingled in a perhaps confusing way (a linguistic process known as ''movement'' sets everything back into place, giving <code>"he leo maı"</code> an illusion of continuity).<br />
*: The problem here is that <i>verb phrase</i> isn’t a very intuitive concept to grasp or manipulate. <code>"he leo maı"</code> from before becomes: a fragment of a modality phrase ({{t|he}}) and two fragments of verb phrases ({{t|leo}} without its object and {{t|maı}} without its object). The full verb phrases in the example are discontinuous (peek at the diagram on the right): {{t|maı … báq paı âq}}, {{t|leo maı … báq paı âq}}, and finally {{t|leo maı jí báq paı âq}}. <code>"leo maı"</code> does not correspond to any one verb phrase, but fragments of four verb phrases torn out of a so-called '''verbal complex''' and stitched together to give an illusion of contiguousness.<br />
*:<br />
*: Similarly when noun forms are concerned, no one type of syntactic phrase corresponds to them: there are determiner phrases, complementizer phrases, but also focus phrases ({{t|kú jí}}), coordination phrases ({{t|jí róı súq}}), …. The list goes on. One could theoretically refer to them all collectively as “phrases acting nominally”, but this does not roll off the tongue whatsoever.<br />
*<br />
* At the '''semantic/denotational''' level, there are unary '''predicates/functions''' applied to various types of '''arguments'''.<br />
*: Here, in turn, we find that not only has <code>"leo maı"</code> ever corresponded to one “predicate”, even though we like to colloquially think of it as a “verb” with an effective arity of 2 and the definition <i>{{x}} tries to love {{x}}</i>. Also, the actual denotation of the entire verbal complex is much grosser than a binary function, lol.<br />
<br />
To recap: you could think of Toaq as a pipeline that takes a '''string''' to a '''tree''', and then to a '''logical form'''. We often find the most comfort talking about the strings as though they were parts of trees or even the trees themselves, and as though they were simplistic predicates that applied to a minimal amount of arguments in a neat way. In other words, we like to equivocate – and because of this, referring to verb forms as <i>predicates</i> or <i>verb phrases</i>, for instance, is only temporary relief for the learner before they dive into the deep syntax or (god forbid) the semantics and find that nothing that they’ve learned corresponds to what verb phrases and predicates actually look like.<br />
<br />
So the real purpose of saying <i>verb form</i> instead of, say, <i>verb phrase</i> is '''not to use deep syntax terms to describe (and teach) surface-level Toaq'''. We want to match simple explanations with equally simple terms while remaining correct, and this is the solution we’re taking – save for pulling random Toaq roots out of our hat (like Lojban does with <i>sumti</i> and <i>selbri</i> and about everything else under the sun).</div>Uakcihttps://toaq.me/index.php?title=Noun_form&diff=1771Noun form2023-12-06T20:33:24Z<p>Uakci: Created page with "A '''noun form''' is any string of words that can appear as an argument to a verb form. In Toaq, this can be: * a determiner phrase {{gray|like {{t|cáo}} <i>the season</i> or {{t|ké pıo}} <i>that one rock</i> or {{t|tú}} <i>everything</i> or {{t|gú ë gıtoı súq jí}} <i>the two times you treated me well</i>}}; * a pronoun {{gray|like {{t|máq}} <i>it (inanimate)</i> or {{t|hụ́la}} <i>the aforementioned {{t|lä}}-clause</i>}}; * a complementizer..."</p>
<hr />
<div>A '''noun form''' is any string of words that can appear as an argument to a [[verb form]]. In Toaq, this can be:<br />
<br />
* a [[determiner phrase]] {{gray|like {{t|cáo}} <i>the season</i> or {{t|ké pıo}} <i>that one rock</i> or {{t|tú}} <i>everything</i> or {{t|gú ë gıtoı súq jí}} <i>the two times you treated me well</i>}};<br />
* a [[pronoun]] {{gray|like {{t|máq}} <i>it (inanimate)</i> or {{t|hụ́la}} <i>the aforementioned {{t|lä}}-clause</i>}};<br />
* a [[complementizer phrase]] (aka a subclause) {{gray|like {{t|ꝡä nıtı súq}} <i>that you are here</i> or {{t|mä loq río}} <i>if it [the air]’s hot</i> or {{t|lä sı báq bụzao puı já}} <i>to be stared at by many strangers</i>}};<br />
* any [[conjunction]] of any of the above {{gray|like {{t|jí róı súq}} <i>me and you</i>}};<br />
* any [[focus]] phrase wrapping any of the above {{gray|like {{t|tó dóte}} <i>only the gift</i>}}.<br />
<br />
We use the phrase <i>noun form</i> in place of <i>noun, noun phrase, argument</i> for reasons of clarity – see technical discussion at [[Verblike, nounlike]].</div>Uakcihttps://toaq.me/index.php?title=Verb_form&diff=1770Verb form2023-12-06T20:27:34Z<p>Uakci: Created page with "A '''verb form''' is any string of words that can be placed in verb position. In Toaq, this can be: * an atomic (“single-word”) verb {{gray|like {{t|rua}} <i>flower</i>}}; * a predicatizer taking a noun form {{gray|like {{t|po jí}} <i>of me</i> or {{t|mea chóaq}} <i>among the guests</i>}}; * a quote {{gray|like {{t|shu ‹kası›}} <i>the word ‘kası’</i> or {{t|mı Dıao}} <i>Dıao; one named ‘Dıao’</i>}}; * an {{t|ë}}-phrase {{gray..."</p>
<hr />
<div>A '''verb form''' is any string of words that can be placed in [[verb]] position. In Toaq, this can be:<br />
<br />
* an atomic (“single-word”) verb {{gray|like {{t|rua}} <i>flower</i>}};<br />
* a [[predicatizer]] taking a [[noun form]] {{gray|like {{t|po jí}} <i>of me</i> or {{t|mea chóaq}} <i>among the guests</i>}};<br />
* a [[quote]] {{gray|like {{t|shu ‹kası›}} <i>the word ‘kası’</i> or {{t|mı Dıao}} <i>Dıao; one named ‘Dıao’</i>}};<br />
* an {{t|[[ë]]}}-phrase {{gray|like {{t|ë dea súq múao}} <i>your kicking a tree</i>}};<br />
* a [[serial verb]] composing any of the above {{gray|like {{t|leo maı}} <i>try to love</i> or {{t|du ë cheo soı sá shụqguamea}} <i>seem like a fight between plain civilians</i>}};<br />
* a [[conjunction]] of atomic verbs {{gray|like {{t|de ru nuı}} <i>beautiful and small</i>}};<br />
* a [[focus]]ing of an atomic verb {{gray|like {{t|jụaqrıatua}} <i>even open; go so far as to open<i>}}.<br />
<br />
We use the phrase <i>verb form</i> in place of <i>verb, verb phrase, predicate</i> for reasons of clarity – see technical discussion at [[Verblike, nounlike]].</div>Uakcihttps://toaq.me/index.php?title=Verb_form,_noun_form&diff=1769Verb form, noun form2023-12-06T20:18:35Z<p>Uakci: link to individual pages for both concepts</p>
<hr />
<div>We shall use the terms '''verb form''' and '''noun form''' to refer to any strings of words that can function as “verbs” and “nouns” respectively. Namely, we’ll define<br />
<br />
; [[verb form]]s: [[atomic verb|single verb words]] ({{t|toa}}, {{t|bụfoaq}}), [[serial verb]]s without arguments ({{t|dua maı}}, {{t|fuı tua mara}}), and special verb forms like [[predicatizer]]s ({{t|po jí}}) or [[quote]]s ({{t|shu ‹kası›}}) or [[ë|{{t|ë}}-phrases]] ({{t|ë tı súq ní}}) {{TODO|on the fence about whether this should include verbs with “prefilled” slots, i.e., object incorporation – {{t|choaı sâ nuı}}}}; finally including [[conjunction]]s ({{t|de ra fıe}}) and [[focus]]ed versions ({{t|kụloı}}) of those<br />
; [[noun form]]s: [[determiner phrase]]s ({{t|cáo}}, {{t|ké paı mara}}), [[pronoun]]s ({{t|máq}}, {{t|hụ́la}}), and [[complementizer phrase|subclause]]s ({{t|ꝡä tı súq ní}}, {{t|lä nuaobo báq shıaq jâ}}); finally including conjunctions ({{t|pío de róı é fıe shía}}) and focused versions ({{t|tó báq lue}}) of those<br />
<br />
with the following idea in mind:<br />
<br />
: clause ≔ {{small caps|verb form}} + zero or more {{small caps|noun form}}s<br />
<br />
This reflects the way we think about the composition of clauses, also minding the fact that the grammar puts the verb form at the very front and all the noun forms after it in one sequence. It also saves us from the confusion.<br />
<br />
== The confusion ==<br />
There are multiple layers of abstraction in play, and confusing them eventually leads to confusion. Let’s enumerate the layers with the example sentence {{t|He leo maı jí báq paı âq da}} <i>I try to love my friends</i>:<br />
<br />
[[File:He leo maı jí báq paı âq.png|thumb|A grossly oversimplified look at the verb and verb-related phrases in the example sentence. Each blue node is a full contiguous phrase. Notice how there is no phrase that corresponds to <code>"he leo maı"</code>; rather, those three words are scattered across the tree and intermingled with determiner phrases. This is why we can’t call {{t|he leo maı}} a verb phrase with a clean conscience.]]<br />
<br />
[[File:He leo maı.png|thumb|Innately conceptualizing the verb form {{t|he leo maı}} as a (discontiguous) template with slots for two nounlikes.]]<br />
<br />
* At the '''phonetic/textual''' level, we have strings of text (or sounds) that are conceptualized as verb-like or noun-like phrase-like things. This is where we identify '''verb forms''' and '''noun forms'''.<br />
*: We think of the string <code>"he leo maı"</code> as a binary “verb” or “predicate” followed by two “arguments”, <code>"jí"</code> and <code>"báq paı âq"</code>. We innately associate these fragments with “predicates” or “entities” at a pre-syntactic level.<br />
*:: You should be alarmed by the amount of scarequotes in this bullet point.<br />
*<br />
* At the '''syntactic''' level, we have phrases, such as '''verb phrases''', '''determiner phrases''' and similar. These are continuous trees of nested phrases, but the phonetic/textual content they represent is intermingled in a perhaps confusing way (a linguistic process known as ''movement'' sets everything back into place, giving <code>"he leo maı"</code> an illusion of continuity).<br />
*: The problem here is that <i>verb phrase</i> isn’t a very intuitive concept to grasp or manipulate. <code>"he leo maı"</code> from before becomes: a fragment of a modality phrase ({{t|he}}) and two fragments of verb phrases ({{t|leo}} without its object and {{t|maı}} without its object). The full verb phrases in the example are discontinuous (peek at the diagram on the right): {{t|maı … báq paı âq}}, {{t|leo maı … báq paı âq}}, and finally {{t|leo maı jí báq paı âq}}. <code>"leo maı"</code> does not correspond to any one verb phrase, but fragments of four verb phrases torn out of a so-called '''verbal complex''' and stitched together to give an illusion of contiguousness.<br />
*:<br />
*: Similarly when noun forms are concerned, no one type of syntactic phrase corresponds to them: there are determiner phrases, complementizer phrases, but also focus phrases ({{t|kú jí}}), coordination phrases ({{t|jí róı súq}}), …. The list goes on. One could theoretically refer to them all collectively as “phrases acting nominally”, but this does not roll off the tongue whatsoever.<br />
*<br />
* At the '''semantic/denotational''' level, there are unary '''predicates/functions''' applied to various types of '''arguments'''.<br />
*: Here, in turn, we find that not only has <code>"leo maı"</code> ever corresponded to one “predicate”, even though we like to colloquially think of it as a “verb” with an effective arity of 2 and the definition <i>{{x}} tries to love {{x}}</i>. Also, the actual denotation of the entire verbal complex is much grosser than a binary function, lol.<br />
<br />
To recap: you could think of Toaq as a pipeline that takes a '''string''' to a '''tree''', and then to a '''logical form'''. We often find the most comfort talking about the strings as though they were parts of trees or even the trees themselves, and as though they were simplistic predicates that applied to a minimal amount of arguments in a neat way. In other words, we like to equivocate – and because of this, referring to verb forms as <i>predicates</i> or <i>verb phrases</i>, for instance, is only temporary relief for the learner before they dive into the deep syntax or (god forbid) the semantics and find that nothing that they’ve learned corresponds to what verb phrases and predicates actually look like.<br />
<br />
So the real purpose of saying <i>verb form</i> instead of, say, <i>verb phrase</i> is '''not to use deep syntax terms to describe (and teach) surface-level Toaq'''. We want to match simple explanations with equally simple terms while remaining correct, and this is the solution we’re taking – save for pulling random Toaq roots out of our hat (like Lojban does with <i>sumti</i> and <i>selbri</i> and about everything else under the sun).</div>Uakcihttps://toaq.me/index.php?title=Verb_form,_noun_form&diff=1768Verb form, noun form2023-12-06T20:17:46Z<p>Uakci: verblike, nounlike → verb form, noun form</p>
<hr />
<div>We shall use the terms '''verb form''' and '''noun form''' to refer to any strings of words that can function as “verbs” and “nouns” respectively. Namely, we’ll define<br />
<br />
; verb forms: [[atomic verb|single verb words]] ({{t|toa}}, {{t|bụfoaq}}), [[serial verb]]s without arguments ({{t|dua maı}}, {{t|fuı tua mara}}), and special verb forms like [[predicatizer]]s ({{t|po jí}}) or [[quote]]s ({{t|shu ‹kası›}}) or [[ë|{{t|ë}}-phrases]] ({{t|ë tı súq ní}}) {{TODO|on the fence about whether this should include verbs with “prefilled” slots, i.e., object incorporation – {{t|choaı sâ nuı}}}}; finally including [[conjunction]]s ({{t|de ra fıe}}) and [[focus]]ed versions ({{t|kụloı}}) of those<br />
; noun forms: [[determiner phrase]]s ({{t|cáo}}, {{t|ké paı mara}}), [[pronoun]]s ({{t|máq}}, {{t|hụ́la}}), and [[complementizer phrase|subclause]]s ({{t|ꝡä tı súq ní}}, {{t|lä nuaobo báq shıaq jâ}}); finally including conjunctions ({{t|pío de róı é fıe shía}}) and focused versions ({{t|tó báq lue}}) of those<br />
<br />
with the following idea in mind:<br />
<br />
: clause ≔ {{small caps|verb form}} + zero or more {{small caps|noun form}}s<br />
<br />
This reflects the way we think about the composition of clauses, also minding the fact that the grammar puts the verb form at the very front and all the noun forms after it in one sequence. It also saves us from the confusion.<br />
<br />
== The confusion ==<br />
There are multiple layers of abstraction in play, and confusing them eventually leads to confusion. Let’s enumerate the layers with the example sentence {{t|He leo maı jí báq paı âq da}} <i>I try to love my friends</i>:<br />
<br />
[[File:He leo maı jí báq paı âq.png|thumb|A grossly oversimplified look at the verb and verb-related phrases in the example sentence. Each blue node is a full contiguous phrase. Notice how there is no phrase that corresponds to <code>"he leo maı"</code>; rather, those three words are scattered across the tree and intermingled with determiner phrases. This is why we can’t call {{t|he leo maı}} a verb phrase with a clean conscience.]]<br />
<br />
[[File:He leo maı.png|thumb|Innately conceptualizing the verb form {{t|he leo maı}} as a (discontiguous) template with slots for two nounlikes.]]<br />
<br />
* At the '''phonetic/textual''' level, we have strings of text (or sounds) that are conceptualized as verb-like or noun-like phrase-like things. This is where we identify '''verb forms''' and '''noun forms'''.<br />
*: We think of the string <code>"he leo maı"</code> as a binary “verb” or “predicate” followed by two “arguments”, <code>"jí"</code> and <code>"báq paı âq"</code>. We innately associate these fragments with “predicates” or “entities” at a pre-syntactic level.<br />
*:: You should be alarmed by the amount of scarequotes in this bullet point.<br />
*<br />
* At the '''syntactic''' level, we have phrases, such as '''verb phrases''', '''determiner phrases''' and similar. These are continuous trees of nested phrases, but the phonetic/textual content they represent is intermingled in a perhaps confusing way (a linguistic process known as ''movement'' sets everything back into place, giving <code>"he leo maı"</code> an illusion of continuity).<br />
*: The problem here is that <i>verb phrase</i> isn’t a very intuitive concept to grasp or manipulate. <code>"he leo maı"</code> from before becomes: a fragment of a modality phrase ({{t|he}}) and two fragments of verb phrases ({{t|leo}} without its object and {{t|maı}} without its object). The full verb phrases in the example are discontinuous (peek at the diagram on the right): {{t|maı … báq paı âq}}, {{t|leo maı … báq paı âq}}, and finally {{t|leo maı jí báq paı âq}}. <code>"leo maı"</code> does not correspond to any one verb phrase, but fragments of four verb phrases torn out of a so-called '''verbal complex''' and stitched together to give an illusion of contiguousness.<br />
*:<br />
*: Similarly when noun forms are concerned, no one type of syntactic phrase corresponds to them: there are determiner phrases, complementizer phrases, but also focus phrases ({{t|kú jí}}), coordination phrases ({{t|jí róı súq}}), …. The list goes on. One could theoretically refer to them all collectively as “phrases acting nominally”, but this does not roll off the tongue whatsoever.<br />
*<br />
* At the '''semantic/denotational''' level, there are unary '''predicates/functions''' applied to various types of '''arguments'''.<br />
*: Here, in turn, we find that not only has <code>"leo maı"</code> ever corresponded to one “predicate”, even though we like to colloquially think of it as a “verb” with an effective arity of 2 and the definition <i>{{x}} tries to love {{x}}</i>. Also, the actual denotation of the entire verbal complex is much grosser than a binary function, lol.<br />
<br />
To recap: you could think of Toaq as a pipeline that takes a '''string''' to a '''tree''', and then to a '''logical form'''. We often find the most comfort talking about the strings as though they were parts of trees or even the trees themselves, and as though they were simplistic predicates that applied to a minimal amount of arguments in a neat way. In other words, we like to equivocate – and because of this, referring to verb forms as <i>predicates</i> or <i>verb phrases</i>, for instance, is only temporary relief for the learner before they dive into the deep syntax or (god forbid) the semantics and find that nothing that they’ve learned corresponds to what verb phrases and predicates actually look like.<br />
<br />
So the real purpose of saying <i>verb form</i> instead of, say, <i>verb phrase</i> is '''not to use deep syntax terms to describe (and teach) surface-level Toaq'''. We want to match simple explanations with equally simple terms while remaining correct, and this is the solution we’re taking – save for pulling random Toaq roots out of our hat (like Lojban does with <i>sumti</i> and <i>selbri</i> and about everything else under the sun).</div>Uakcihttps://toaq.me/index.php?title=Verb_form,_noun_form&diff=1766Verb form, noun form2023-12-06T20:15:28Z<p>Uakci: Uakci moved page Verblike to Verb form, noun form: name is better</p>
<hr />
<div>We shall use the terms '''verblike''' and '''nounlike''' to refer to any strings of words that can function as “verbs” and “nouns” respectively. Namely, we’ll define<br />
<br />
; verblikes: [[atomic verb|single verb words]] ({{t|toa}}, {{t|bụfoaq}}), [[serial verb]]s without arguments ({{t|dua maı}}, {{t|fuı tua mara}}), and special verb forms like [[predicatizer]]s ({{t|po jí}}) or [[quote]]s ({{t|shu ‹kası›}}) or [[ë|{{t|ë}}-phrases]] ({{t|ë tı súq ní}}) {{TODO|on the fence about whether this should include verbs with “prefilled” slots, i.e., object incorporation – {{t|choaı sâ nuı}}}}; finally including [[conjunction]]s ({{t|de ra fıe}}) and [[focus]]ed versions ({{t|kụloı}}) of those<br />
; nounlikes: [[determiner phrase]]s ({{t|cáo}}, {{t|ké paı mara}}), [[pronoun]]s ({{t|máq}}, {{t|hụ́la}}), and [[complementizer phrase|subclause]]s ({{t|ꝡä tı súq ní}}, {{t|lä nuaobo báq shıaq jâ}}); finally including conjunctions ({{t|pío de róı é fıe shía}}) and focused versions ({{t|tó báq lue}}) of those<br />
<br />
with the following idea in mind:<br />
<br />
: clause ≔ {{small caps|verblike}} + zero or more {{small caps|nounlike}}s<br />
<br />
This reflects the way we think about the composition of clauses, also minding the fact that the grammar puts the verblike at the very front and all the nounlikes after it in one sequence. It also saves us from the confusion.<br />
<br />
== The confusion ==<br />
There are multiple layers of abstraction in play, and confusing them eventually leads to confusion. Let’s enumerate the layers with the example sentence {{t|He leo maı jí báq paı âq da}} <i>I try to love my friends</i>:<br />
<br />
[[File:He leo maı jí báq paı âq.png|thumb|A grossly oversimplified look at the verb and verb-related phrases in the example sentence. Each blue node is a full contiguous phrase. Notice how there is no phrase that corresponds to <code>"he leo maı"</code>; rather, those three words are scattered across the tree and intermingled with determiner phrases. This is why we can’t call {{t|he leo maı}} a verb phrase with a clean conscience.]]<br />
<br />
[[File:He leo maı.png|thumb|Innately conceptualizing the verblike {{t|he leo maı}} as a (discontiguous) template with slots for two nounlikes.]]<br />
<br />
* At the '''phonetic/textual''' level, we have strings of text (or sounds) that are conceptualized as verb-like or noun-like phrase-like things. This is where we identify '''verblikes''' and '''nounlikes'''.<br />
*: We think of the string <code>"he leo maı"</code> as a binary “verb” or “predicate” followed by two “arguments”, <code>"jí"</code> and <code>"báq paı âq"</code>. We innately associate these fragments with “predicates” or “entities” at a pre-syntactic level.<br />
*:: You should be alarmed by the amount of scarequotes in this bullet point.<br />
*<br />
* At the '''syntactic''' level, we have phrases, such as '''verb phrases''', '''determiner phrases''' and similar. These are continuous trees of nested phrases, but the phonetic/textual content they represent is intermingled in a perhaps confusing way (a linguistic process known as ''movement'' sets everything back into place, giving <code>"he leo maı"</code> an illusion of continuity).<br />
*: The problem here is that <i>verb phrase</i> isn’t a very intuitive concept to grasp or manipulate. <code>"he leo maı"</code> from before becomes: a fragment of a modality phrase ({{t|he}}) and two fragments of verb phrases ({{t|leo}} without its object and {{t|maı}} without its object). The full verb phrases in the example are discontinuous (peek at the diagram on the right): {{t|maı … báq paı âq}}, {{t|leo maı … báq paı âq}}, and finally {{t|leo maı jí báq paı âq}}. <code>"leo maı"</code> does not correspond to any one verb phrase, but fragments of four verb phrases torn out of a so-called '''verbal complex''' and stitched together to give an illusion of contiguousness.<br />
*:<br />
*: Similarly when nounlikes are concerned, no one type of syntactic phrase corresponds to them: there are determiner phrases, complementizer phrases, but also focus phrases ({{t|kú jí}}), coordination phrases ({{t|jí róı súq}}), …. The list goes on. One could theoretically refer to them all collectively as “phrases acting nominally”, but this does not roll off the tongue whatsoever.<br />
*<br />
* At the '''semantic/denotational''' level, there are unary '''predicates/functions''' applied to various types of '''arguments'''.<br />
*: Here, in turn, we find that not only has <code>"leo maı"</code> ever corresponded to one “predicate”, even though we like to colloquially think of it as a “verb” with an effective arity of 2 and the definition <i>{{x}} tries to love {{x}}</i>. Also, the actual denotation of the entire verbal complex is much grosser than a binary function, lol.<br />
<br />
To recap: you could think of Toaq as a pipeline that takes a '''string''' <code>"he leo maı jí báq paı âq"</code> to a '''tree''', and then to a '''logical form'''. We often find the most comfort talking about the strings as though they were parts of trees or even the trees themselves, and as though they were simplistic predicates that applied to a minimal amount of arguments in a neat way. In other words, we like to equivocate – and because of this, referring to verblikes as <i>predicates</i> or <i>verb phrases</i>, for instance, is only temporary relief for the learner before they dive into the deep syntax or (god forbid) the semantics and find that nothing that they’ve learned corresponds to what verb phrases and predicates actually look like.<br />
<br />
So the real purpose of saying <i>verblike</i> instead of, say, <i>verb phrase</i> is '''not to use deep syntax terms to describe (and teach) surface-level Toaq'''. We want to match simple explanations with equally simple terms while remaining correct, and this is the solution we’re taking – save for pulling random Toaq roots out of our hat (like Lojban does with <i>sumti</i> and <i>selbri</i> and about everything else under the sun).<br />
<br />
== Other options considered or to consider ==<br />
* We already say <i>[[adverbial]]</i> – why not then <i>'''nominal'''</i>, <i>'''verbal'''</i>?<br />
* '''Verb form''', '''noun form'''?</div>Uakcihttps://toaq.me/index.php?title=Verb_form,_noun_form&diff=1761Verb form, noun form2023-12-06T10:49:35Z<p>Uakci: mention &Ps and FocusPs</p>
<hr />
<div>We shall use the terms '''verblike''' and '''nounlike''' to refer to any strings of words that can function as “verbs” and “nouns” respectively. Namely, we’ll define<br />
<br />
; verblikes: [[atomic verb|single verb words]] ({{t|toa}}, {{t|bụfoaq}}), [[serial verb]]s without arguments ({{t|dua maı}}, {{t|fuı tua mara}}), and special verb forms like [[predicatizer]]s ({{t|po jí}}) or [[quote]]s ({{t|shu ‹kası›}}) or [[ë|{{t|ë}}-phrases]] ({{t|ë tı súq ní}}) {{TODO|on the fence about whether this should include verbs with “prefilled” slots, i.e., object incorporation – {{t|choaı sâ nuı}}}}; finally including [[conjunction]]s ({{t|de ra fıe}}) and [[focus]]ed versions ({{t|kụloı}}) of those<br />
; nounlikes: [[determiner phrase]]s ({{t|cáo}}, {{t|ké paı mara}}), [[pronoun]]s ({{t|máq}}, {{t|hụ́la}}), and [[complementizer phrase|subclause]]s ({{t|ꝡä tı súq ní}}, {{t|lä nuaobo báq shıaq jâ}}); finally including conjunctions ({{t|pío de róı é fıe shía}}) and focused versions ({{t|tó báq lue}}) of those<br />
<br />
with the following idea in mind:<br />
<br />
: clause ≔ {{small caps|verblike}} + zero or more {{small caps|nounlike}}s<br />
<br />
This reflects the way we think about the composition of clauses, also minding the fact that the grammar puts the verblike at the very front and all the nounlikes after it in one sequence. It also saves us from the confusion.<br />
<br />
== The confusion ==<br />
There are multiple layers of abstraction in play, and confusing them eventually leads to confusion. Let’s enumerate the layers with the example sentence {{t|He leo maı jí báq paı âq da}} <i>I try to love my friends</i>:<br />
<br />
[[File:He leo maı jí báq paı âq.png|thumb|A grossly oversimplified look at the verb and verb-related phrases in the example sentence. Each blue node is a full contiguous phrase. Notice how there is no phrase that corresponds to <code>"he leo maı"</code>; rather, those three words are scattered across the tree and intermingled with determiner phrases. This is why we can’t call {{t|he leo maı}} a verb phrase with a clean conscience.]]<br />
<br />
[[File:He leo maı.png|thumb|Innately conceptualizing the verblike {{t|he leo maı}} as a (discontiguous) template with slots for two nounlikes.]]<br />
<br />
* At the '''phonetic/textual''' level, we have strings of text (or sounds) that are conceptualized as verb-like or noun-like phrase-like things. This is where we identify '''verblikes''' and '''nounlikes'''.<br />
*: We think of the string <code>"he leo maı"</code> as a binary “verb” or “predicate” followed by two “arguments”, <code>"jí"</code> and <code>"báq paı âq"</code>. We innately associate these fragments with “predicates” or “entities” at a pre-syntactic level.<br />
*:: You should be alarmed by the amount of scarequotes in this bullet point.<br />
*<br />
* At the '''syntactic''' level, we have phrases, such as '''verb phrases''', '''determiner phrases''' and similar. These are continuous trees of nested phrases, but the phonetic/textual content they represent is intermingled in a perhaps confusing way (a linguistic process known as ''movement'' sets everything back into place, giving <code>"he leo maı"</code> an illusion of continuity).<br />
*: The problem here is that <i>verb phrase</i> isn’t a very intuitive concept to grasp or manipulate. <code>"he leo maı"</code> from before becomes: a fragment of a modality phrase ({{t|he}}) and two fragments of verb phrases ({{t|leo}} without its object and {{t|maı}} without its object). The full verb phrases in the example are discontinuous (peek at the diagram on the right): {{t|maı … báq paı âq}}, {{t|leo maı … báq paı âq}}, and finally {{t|leo maı jí báq paı âq}}. <code>"leo maı"</code> does not correspond to any one verb phrase, but fragments of four verb phrases torn out of a so-called '''verbal complex''' and stitched together to give an illusion of contiguousness.<br />
*:<br />
*: Similarly when nounlikes are concerned, no one type of syntactic phrase corresponds to them: there are determiner phrases, complementizer phrases, but also focus phrases ({{t|kú jí}}), coordination phrases ({{t|jí róı súq}}), …. The list goes on. One could theoretically refer to them all collectively as “phrases acting nominally”, but this does not roll off the tongue whatsoever.<br />
*<br />
* At the '''semantic/denotational''' level, there are unary '''predicates/functions''' applied to various types of '''arguments'''.<br />
*: Here, in turn, we find that not only has <code>"leo maı"</code> ever corresponded to one “predicate”, even though we like to colloquially think of it as a “verb” with an effective arity of 2 and the definition <i>{{x}} tries to love {{x}}</i>. Also, the actual denotation of the entire verbal complex is much grosser than a binary function, lol.<br />
<br />
To recap: you could think of Toaq as a pipeline that takes a '''string''' <code>"he leo maı jí báq paı âq"</code> to a '''tree''', and then to a '''logical form'''. We often find the most comfort talking about the strings as though they were parts of trees or even the trees themselves, and as though they were simplistic predicates that applied to a minimal amount of arguments in a neat way. In other words, we like to equivocate – and because of this, referring to verblikes as <i>predicates</i> or <i>verb phrases</i>, for instance, is only temporary relief for the learner before they dive into the deep syntax or (god forbid) the semantics and find that nothing that they’ve learned corresponds to what verb phrases and predicates actually look like.<br />
<br />
So the real purpose of saying <i>verblike</i> instead of, say, <i>verb phrase</i> is '''not to use deep syntax terms to describe (and teach) surface-level Toaq'''. We want to match simple explanations with equally simple terms while remaining correct, and this is the solution we’re taking – save for pulling random Toaq roots out of our hat (like Lojban does with <i>sumti</i> and <i>selbri</i> and about everything else under the sun).<br />
<br />
== Other options considered or to consider ==<br />
* We already say <i>[[adverbial]]</i> – why not then <i>'''nominal'''</i>, <i>'''verbal'''</i>?<br />
* '''Verb form''', '''noun form'''?</div>Uakcihttps://toaq.me/index.php?title=File:He_leo_ma%C4%B1.png&diff=1760File:He leo maı.png2023-12-06T00:10:27Z<p>Uakci: Uakci uploaded a new version of File:He leo maı.png</p>
<hr />
<div></div>Uakcihttps://toaq.me/index.php?title=File:He_leo_ma%C4%B1_j%C3%AD_b%C3%A1q_pa%C4%B1_%C3%A2q.png&diff=1759File:He leo maı jí báq paı âq.png2023-12-06T00:10:14Z<p>Uakci: Uakci uploaded a new version of File:He leo maı jí báq paı âq.png</p>
<hr />
<div></div>Uakcihttps://toaq.me/index.php?title=Verb_form,_noun_form&diff=1758Verb form, noun form2023-12-06T00:09:55Z<p>Uakci: </p>
<hr />
<div>We shall use the terms '''verblike''' and '''nounlike''' to refer to any strings of words that can function as “verbs” and “nouns” respectively. Namely, we’ll define<br />
<br />
; verblikes: [[atomic verb|single verb words]] ({{t|toa}}, {{t|bụfoaq}}), [[serial verb]]s without arguments ({{t|dua maı}}, {{t|fuı tua mara}}), and special verb forms like [[predicatizer]]s ({{t|pó jí}}) or [[quote]]s ({{t|shú ‹kası›}}) or [[ë|{{t|ë}}-phrases]] ({{t|ë tı súq ní}}) {{TODO|on the fence about whether this should include verbs with “prefilled” slots, i.e., object incorporation – {{t|choaı sâ nuı}}}}<br />
; nounlikes: [[determiner phrase]]s ({{t|cáo}}, {{t|ké paı mara}}), [[pronoun]]s ({{t|máq}}, {{t|hụ́la}}), and [[complementizer phrase|subclause]]s ({{t|ꝡä tı súq ní}}, {{t|lä nuaobo báq shıaq jâ}})<br />
<br />
with the following idea in mind:<br />
<br />
: clause ≔ {{small caps|verblike}} + zero or more {{small caps|nounlike}}s<br />
<br />
This reflects the way we think about the composition of clauses, also minding the fact that the grammar puts the verblike at the very front and all the nounlikes after it in one sequence. It also saves us from the confusion.<br />
<br />
== The confusion ==<br />
There are multiple layers of abstraction in play, and confusing them eventually leads to confusion. Let’s enumerate the layers with the example sentence {{t|He leo maı jí báq paı âq da}} <i>I try to love my friends</i>:<br />
<br />
[[File:He leo maı jí báq paı âq.png|thumb|A grossly oversimplified look at the verb and verb-related phrases in the example sentence. Each blue node is a full contiguous phrase. Notice how there is no phrase that corresponds to <code>"he leo maı"</code>; rather, those three words are scattered across the tree and intermingled with determiner phrases. This is why we can’t call {{t|he leo maı}} a verb phrase with a clean conscience.]]<br />
<br />
[[File:He leo maı.png|thumb|Innately conceptualizing the verblike {{t|he leo maı}} as a (discontiguous) template with slots for two nounlikes.]]<br />
<br />
* At the '''phonetic/textual''' level, we have strings of text (or sounds) that are conceptualized as verb-like or noun-like phrase-like things. This is where we identify '''verblikes''' and '''nounlikes'''.<br />
*: We think of the string <code>"he leo maı"</code> as a binary “verb” or “predicate” followed by two “arguments”, <code>"jí"</code> and <code>"báq paı âq"</code>. We innately associate these fragments with “predicates” or “entities” at a pre-syntactic level.<br />
*:: You should be alarmed by the amount of scarequotes in this bullet point.<br />
*<br />
* At the '''syntactic''' level, we have phrases, such as '''verb phrases''', '''determiner phrases''' and similar. These are continuous trees of nested phrases, but the phonetic/textual content they represent is intermingled in a perhaps confusing way (a linguistic process known as ''movement'' sets everything back into place, giving <code>"he leo maı"</code> an illusion of continuity).<br />
*: The problem here is that <i>verb phrase</i> isn’t a very intuitive concept to grasp or manipulate. <code>"he leo maı"</code> from before becomes: a fragment of a modality phrase ({{t|he}}) and two fragments of verb phrases ({{t|leo}} without its object and {{t|maı}} without its object). The full verb phrases in the example are discontinuous (peek at the diagram on the right): {{t|maı … báq paı âq}}, {{t|leo maı … báq paı âq}}, and finally {{t|leo maı jí báq paı âq}}. <code>"leo maı"</code> does not correspond to any one verb phrase, but fragments of four verb phrases torn out of a so-called '''verbal complex''' and stitched together to give an illusion of contiguousness.<br />
*:<br />
*: Similarly when nounlikes are concerned, no one type of syntactic phrase corresponds to them: there are determiner phrases, complementizer phrases, but also focus phrases ({{t|kú jí}}), coordination phrases ({{t|jí róı súq}}), …. The list goes on. One could theoretically refer to them all collectively as “phrases acting nominally”, but this does not roll off the tongue whatsoever.<br />
*<br />
* At the '''semantic/denotational''' level, there are unary '''predicates/functions''' applied to various types of '''arguments'''.<br />
*: Here, in turn, we find that not only has <code>"leo maı"</code> ever corresponded to one “predicate”, even though we like to colloquially think of it as a “verb” with an effective arity of 2 and the definition <i>{{x}} tries to love {{x}}</i>. Also, the actual denotation of the entire verbal complex is much grosser than a binary function, lol.<br />
<br />
To recap: you could think of Toaq as a pipeline that takes a '''string''' <code>"he leo maı jí báq paı âq"</code> to a '''tree''', and then to a '''logical form'''. We often find the most comfort talking about the strings as though they were parts of trees or even the trees themselves, and as though they were simplistic predicates that applied to a minimal amount of arguments in a neat way. In other words, we like to equivocate – and because of this, referring to verblikes as <i>predicates</i> or <i>verb phrases</i>, for instance, is only temporary relief for the learner before they dive into the deep syntax or (god forbid) the semantics and find that nothing that they’ve learned corresponds to what verb phrases and predicates actually look like.<br />
<br />
So the real purpose of saying <i>verblike</i> instead of, say, <i>verb phrase</i> is '''not to use deep syntax terms to describe (and teach) surface-level Toaq'''. We want to match simple explanations with equally simple terms while remaining correct, and this is the solution we’re taking – save for pulling random Toaq roots out of our hat (like Lojban does with <i>sumti</i> and <i>selbri</i> and about everything else under the sun).<br />
<br />
== Other options considered or to consider ==<br />
* We already say <i>[[adverbial]]</i> – why not then <i>'''nominal'''</i>, <i>'''verbal'''</i>?<br />
* '''Verb form''', '''noun form'''?</div>Uakcihttps://toaq.me/index.php?title=Verb_form,_noun_form&diff=1757Verb form, noun form2023-12-05T23:54:02Z<p>Uakci: add template conceptualization</p>
<hr />
<div>We shall use the terms '''verblike''' and '''nounlike''' to refer to any strings of words that can function as “verbs” and “nouns” respectively. Namely, we’ll define<br />
<br />
; verblikes: [[atomic verb|single verb words]] ({{t|toa}}, {{t|bụfoaq}}), [[serial verb]]s without arguments ({{t|dua maı}}, {{t|fuı tua mara}}), and special verb like [[predicatizer]]s ({{t|pó jí}}) or [[quote]]s ({{t|shú ‹kası›}}) or [[ë|{{t|ë}}-phrases]] ({{t|ë tı súq ní}}) {{TODO|on the fence about whether this should include verbs with “prefilled” slots, i.e., object incorporation – {{t|choaı sâ nuı}}}}<br />
; nounlikes: [[determiner phrase]]s ({{t|cáo}}, {{t|ké paı mara}}), [[pronoun]]s ({{t|máq}}, {{t|hụ́la}}), and [[complementizer phrase|subclause]]s ({{t|ꝡä tı súq ní}}, {{t|lä nuaobo báq shıaq jâ}})<br />
<br />
with the following idea in mind:<br />
<br />
: clause ≔ {{small caps|verblike}} + zero or more {{small caps|nounlike}}s<br />
<br />
This reflects the way we think about the composition of clauses, also minding the fact that the grammar puts the verblike at the very front and all the nounlikes after it in one sequence. It also saves us from the confusion.<br />
<br />
== The confusion ==<br />
There are multiple layers of abstraction in play, and confusing them eventually leads to confusion. Let’s enumerate the layers with the example sentence {{t|He leo maı jí báq paı âq da}} <i>I try to love my friends</i>:<br />
<br />
[[File:He leo maı jí báq paı âq.png|thumb|A grossly oversimplified look at the verb and verb-related phrases in the example sentence. Each blue node is a full contiguous phrase. Notice how there is no phrase that corresponds to <code>"he leo maı"</code>; rather, those three words are scattered across the tree and intermingled with determiner phrases. This is why we can’t call {{t|he leo maı}} a verb phrase with a clean conscience.]]<br />
<br />
[[File:He leo maı.png|thumb|Innately conceptualizing the verblike {{t|he leo maı}} as a (discontiguous) template with slots ({{x}}) for two nounlikes.]]<br />
<br />
* At the '''phonetic/textual''' level, we have strings of text (or sounds) that are conceptualized as verb-like or noun-like phrase-like things. This is where we identify '''verblikes''' and '''nounlikes'''.<br />
*: We think of the string <code>"he leo maı"</code> as a binary “verb” or “predicate” followed by two “arguments”, <code>"jí"</code> and <code>"báq paı âq"</code>. We innately associate these fragments with “predicates” or “entities” at a pre-syntactic level.<br />
*:: You should be alarmed by the amount of scarequotes in this bullet point.<br />
*<br />
* At the '''syntactic''' level, we have phrases, such as '''verb phrases''', '''determiner phrases''' and similar. These are continuous trees of nested phrases, but the phonetic/textual content they represent is intermingled in a perhaps confusing way (a linguistic process known as ''movement'' sets everything back into place, giving <code>"he leo maı"</code> an illusion of continuity).<br />
*: The problem here is that <i>verb phrase</i> isn’t a very intuitive concept to grasp or manipulate. <code>"he leo maı"</code> from before becomes: a fragment of a modality phrase ({{t|he}}) and two fragments of verb phrases ({{t|leo}} without its object and {{t|maı}} without its object). The full verb phrases in the example are discontinuous (peek at the diagram on the right): {{t|maı … báq paı âq}}, {{t|leo maı … báq paı âq}}, and finally {{t|leo maı jí báq paı âq}}. <code>"leo maı"</code> does not correspond to any one verb phrase, but fragments of four verb phrases torn out of a so-called '''verbal complex''' and stitched together to give an illusion of contiguousness.<br />
*:<br />
*: Similarly when nounlikes are concerned, no one type of syntactic phrase corresponds to them: there are determiner phrases, complementizer phrases, but also focus phrases ({{t|kú jí}}), coordination phrases ({{t|jí róı súq}}), …. The list goes on. One could theoretically refer to them all collectively as “phrases acting nominally”, but this does not roll off the tongue whatsoever.<br />
*<br />
* At the '''semantic/denotational''' level, there are unary '''predicates/functions''' applied to various types of '''arguments'''.<br />
*: Here, in turn, we find that not only has <code>"leo maı"</code> ever corresponded to one “predicate”, even though we like to colloquially think of it as a “verb” with an effective arity of 2 and the definition <i>{{x}} tries to love {{x}}</i>. Also, the actual denotation of the entire verbal complex is much grosser than a binary function, lol.<br />
<br />
To recap: you could think of Toaq as a pipeline that takes a '''string''' <code>"he leo maı jí báq paı âq"</code> to a '''tree''', and then to a '''logical form'''. We often find the most comfort talking about the strings as though they were parts of trees or even the trees themselves, and as though they were simplistic predicates that applied to a minimal amount of arguments in a neat way. In other words, we like to equivocate – and because of this, referring to verblikes as <i>predicates</i> or <i>verb phrases</i>, for instance, is only temporary relief for the learner before they dive into the deep syntax or (god forbid) the semantics and find that nothing that they’ve learned corresponds to what verb phrases and predicates actually look like.<br />
<br />
So the real purpose of saying <i>verblike</i> instead of, say, <i>verb phrase</i> is '''not to use deep syntax terms to describe (and teach) surface-level Toaq'''. We want to match simple explanations with equally simple terms while remaining correct, and this is the solution we’re taking – save for pulling random Toaq roots out of our hat (like Lojban does with <i>sumti</i> and <i>selbri</i> and about everything else under the sun).<br />
<br />
== Other options considered or to consider ==<br />
* We already say <i>[[adverbial]]</i> – why not then <i>'''nominal'''</i>, <i>'''verbal'''</i>?</div>Uakcihttps://toaq.me/index.php?title=File:He_leo_ma%C4%B1.png&diff=1756File:He leo maı.png2023-12-05T23:51:04Z<p>Uakci: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Uakcihttps://toaq.me/index.php?title=Verb_form,_noun_form&diff=1755Verb form, noun form2023-12-05T23:46:37Z<p>Uakci: </p>
<hr />
<div>We shall use the terms '''verblike''' and '''nounlike''' to refer to any strings of words that can function as “verbs” and “nouns” respectively. Namely, we’ll define<br />
<br />
; verblikes: [[atomic verb|single verb words]] ({{t|toa}}, {{t|bụfoaq}}), [[serial verb]]s without arguments ({{t|dua maı}}, {{t|fuı tua mara}}), and special verb like [[predicatizer]]s ({{t|pó jí}}) or [[quote]]s ({{t|shú ‹kası›}}) or [[ë|{{t|ë}}-phrases]] ({{t|ë tı súq ní}}) {{TODO|on the fence about whether this should include verbs with “prefilled” slots, i.e., object incorporation – {{t|choaı sâ nuı}}}}<br />
; nounlikes: [[determiner phrase]]s ({{t|cáo}}, {{t|ké paı mara}}), [[pronoun]]s ({{t|máq}}, {{t|hụ́la}}), and [[complementizer phrase|subclause]]s ({{t|ꝡä tı súq ní}}, {{t|lä nuaobo báq shıaq jâ}})<br />
<br />
with the following idea in mind:<br />
<br />
: clause ≔ {{small caps|verblike}} + zero or more {{small caps|nounlike}}s<br />
<br />
This reflects the way we think about the composition of clauses, also minding the fact that the grammar puts the verblike at the very front and all the nounlikes after it in one sequence. It also saves us from the confusion.<br />
<br />
== The confusion ==<br />
There are multiple layers of abstraction in play, and confusing them eventually leads to confusion. Let’s enumerate the layers with the example sentence {{t|He leo maı jí báq paı âq da}} <i>I try to love my friends</i>:<br />
<br />
[[File:He leo maı jí báq paı âq.png|thumb|A grossly oversimplified look at the verb and verb-related phrases in the example sentence. Each blue node is a full contiguous phrase. Notice how there is no phrase that corresponds to <code>"he leo maı"</code>; rather, those three words are scattered across the tree and intermingled with determiner phrases. This is why we can’t call {{t|he leo maı}} a verb phrase with a clean conscience.]]<br />
<br />
* At the '''phonetic/textual''' level, we have strings of text (or sounds) that are conceptualized as verb-like or noun-like phrase-like things. This is where we identify '''verblikes''' and '''nounlikes'''.<br />
*: We think of the string <code>"he leo maı"</code> as a binary “verb” or “predicate” followed by two “arguments”, <code>"jí"</code> and <code>"báq paı âq"</code>. We innately associate these fragments with “predicates” or “entities” at a pre-syntactic level.<br />
*:: You should be alarmed by the amount of scarequotes in this bullet point.<br />
*<br />
* At the '''syntactic''' level, we have phrases, such as '''verb phrases''', '''determiner phrases''' and similar. These are continuous trees of nested phrases, but the phonetic/textual content they represent is intermingled in a perhaps confusing way (a linguistic process known as ''movement'' sets everything back into place, giving <code>"he leo maı"</code> an illusion of continuity).<br />
*: The problem here is that <i>verb phrase</i> isn’t a very intuitive concept to grasp or manipulate. <code>"he leo maı"</code> from before becomes: a fragment of a modality phrase ({{t|he}}) and two fragments of verb phrases ({{t|leo}} without its object and {{t|maı}} without its object). The full verb phrases in the example are discontinuous (peek at the diagram on the right): {{t|maı … báq paı âq}}, {{t|leo maı … báq paı âq}}, and finally {{t|leo maı jí báq paı âq}}. <code>"leo maı"</code> does not correspond to any one verb phrase, but fragments of four verb phrases torn out of a so-called '''verbal complex''' and stitched together to give an illusion of contiguousness.<br />
*:<br />
*: Similarly when nounlikes are concerned, no one type of syntactic phrase corresponds to them: there are determiner phrases, complementizer phrases, but also focus phrases ({{t|kú jí}}), coordination phrases ({{t|jí róı súq}}), …. The list goes on. One could theoretically refer to them all collectively as “phrases acting nominally”, but this does not roll off the tongue whatsoever.<br />
*<br />
* At the '''semantic/denotational''' level, there are unary '''predicates/functions''' applied to various types of '''arguments'''.<br />
*: Here, in turn, we find that not only has <code>"leo maı"</code> ever corresponded to one “predicate”, even though we like to colloquially think of it as a “verb” with an effective arity of 2 and the definition <i>{{x}} tries to love {{x}}</i>. Also, the actual denotation of the entire verbal complex is much grosser than a binary function, lol.<br />
<br />
To recap: you could think of Toaq as a pipeline that takes a '''string''' <code>"he leo maı jí báq paı âq"</code> to a '''tree''', and then to a '''logical form'''. We often find the most comfort talking about the strings as though they were parts of trees or even the trees themselves, and as though they were simplistic predicates that applied to a minimal amount of arguments in a neat way. In other words, we like to equivocate – and because of this, referring to verblikes as <i>predicates</i> or <i>verb phrases</i>, for instance, is only temporary relief for the learner before they dive into the deep syntax or (god forbid) the semantics and find that nothing that they’ve learned corresponds to what verb phrases and predicates actually look like.<br />
<br />
So the real purpose of saying <i>verblike</i> instead of, say, <i>verb phrase</i> is '''not to use deep syntax terms to describe (and teach) surface-level Toaq'''. We want to match simple explanations with equally simple terms while remaining correct, and this is the solution we’re taking – save for pulling random Toaq roots out of our hat (like Lojban does with <i>sumti</i> and <i>selbri</i> and about everything else under the sun).<br />
<br />
== Other options considered or to consider ==<br />
* We already say <i>[[adverbial]]</i> – why not then <i>'''nominal'''</i>, <i>'''verbal'''</i>?</div>Uakcihttps://toaq.me/index.php?title=Verb_form,_noun_form&diff=1754Verb form, noun form2023-12-05T23:43:08Z<p>Uakci: Created page with "We shall use the terms '''verblike''' and '''nounlike''' to refer to any strings of words that can function as “verbs” and “nouns” respectively. Namely, we’ll define ; verblikes: single verb words ({{t|toa}}, {{t|bụfoaq}}), serial verbs without arguments ({{t|dua maı}}, {{t|fuı tua mara}}), and special verb like predicatizers ({{t|pó jí}}) or quotes ({{t|shú ‹kası›}}) or ë}}-phrases ({{t|ë tı súq ní}}) {{..."</p>
<hr />
<div>We shall use the terms '''verblike''' and '''nounlike''' to refer to any strings of words that can function as “verbs” and “nouns” respectively. Namely, we’ll define<br />
<br />
; verblikes: [[atomic verb|single verb words]] ({{t|toa}}, {{t|bụfoaq}}), [[serial verb]]s without arguments ({{t|dua maı}}, {{t|fuı tua mara}}), and special verb like [[predicatizer]]s ({{t|pó jí}}) or [[quote]]s ({{t|shú ‹kası›}}) or [[ë|{{t|ë}}-phrases]] ({{t|ë tı súq ní}}) {{TODO|on the fence about whether this should include verbs with “prefilled” slots, i.e., object incorporation – {{t|choaı sâ nuı}}}}<br />
; nounlikes: [[determiner phrase]]s ({{t|cáo}}, {{t|ké paı mara}}), [[pronoun]]s ({{t|máq}}, {{t|hụ́la}}), and [[complementizer phrase|subclause]]s ({{t|ꝡä tı súq ní}}, {{t|lä nuaobo báq shıaq jâ}})<br />
<br />
with the following idea in mind:<br />
<br />
: clause ≔ {{small caps|verblike}} + zero or more {{small caps|nounlike}}s<br />
<br />
This reflects the way we think about the composition of clauses, also minding the fact that the grammar puts the verblike at the very front and all the nounlikes after it in one sequence. It also saves us from the confusion.<br />
<br />
== The confusion ==<br />
There are multiple layers of abstraction in play, and confusing them eventually leads to confusion. Let’s enumerate the layers with the example sentence {{t|He leo maı jí báq paı âq da}} <i>I try to love my friends</i>:<br />
<br />
[[File:He leo maı jí báq paı âq.png|thumb|A grossly oversimplified look on the verb and verb-related phrases in the example sentence. Each blue node is a full contiguous phrase. Notice how there is no phrase that corresponds to <code>"he leo maı"</code>; rather, those three words are scattered across the tree and intermingled with determiner phrases. This is why we can’t call {{t|he leo maı}} a verb phrase with a clean conscience.]]<br />
<br />
* At the '''phonetic/textual''' level, we have strings of text (or sounds) that are conceptualized as verb-like or noun-like phrase-like things. This is where we identify '''verblikes''' and '''nounlikes'''.<br />
*: We think of the string <code>"he leo maı"</code> as a binary “verb” or “predicate” followed by two “arguments”, <code>"jí"</code> and <code>"báq paı âq"</code>. We innately associate these fragments with “predicates” or “entities” at a pre-syntactic level.<br />
*:: You should be alarmed by the amount of scarequotes in this bullet point.<br />
*<br />
* At the '''syntactic''' level, we have phrases, such as '''verb phrases''', '''determiner phrases''' and similar. These are continuous trees of nested phrases, but the phonetic/textual content they represent is intermingled in a perhaps confusing way (a linguistic process known as ''movement'' sets everything back into place, giving <code>"he leo maı"</code> an illusion of continuity).<br />
*: The problem here is that <i>verb phrase</i> isn’t a very intuitive concept to grasp or manipulate. <code>"he leo maı"</code> from before becomes: a fragment of a modality phrase ({{t|he}}) and two fragments of verb phrases ({{t|leo}} without its object and {{t|maı}} without its object). The full verb phrases in the example are discontinuous (peek at the diagram on the right): {{t|maı … báq paı âq}}, {{t|leo maı … báq paı âq}}, and finally {{t|leo maı jí báq paı âq}}. <code>"leo maı"</code> does not correspond to any one verb phrase, but fragments of four verb phrases torn out of a so-called '''verbal complex''' and stitched together to give an illusion of contiguousness.<br />
*:<br />
*: Similarly when nounlikes are concerned, no one type of syntactic phrase corresponds to them: there are determiner phrases, complementizer phrases, but also focus phrases ({{t|kú jí}}), coordination phrases ({{t|jí róı súq}}), …. The list goes on. One could theoretically refer to them all collectively as “phrases acting nominally”, but this does not roll off the tongue whatsoever.<br />
*<br />
* At the '''semantic/denotational''' level, there are unary '''predicates/functions''' applied to various types of '''arguments'''.<br />
*: Here, in turn, we find that not only has <code>"leo maı"</code> ever corresponded to one “predicate”, even though we like to colloquially think of it as a “verb” with an effective arity of 2 and the definition <i>{{x}} tries to love {{x}}</i>. Also, the actual denotation of the entire verbal complex is much grosser than a binary function, lol.<br />
<br />
To recap: you could think of Toaq as a pipeline that takes a '''string''' <code>"he leo maı jí báq paı âq"</code> to a '''tree''', and then to a '''logical form'''. We often find the most comfort talking about the strings as though they were parts of trees or even the trees themselves, and as though they were simplistic predicates that applied to a minimal amount of arguments in a neat way. In other words, we like to equivocate – and because of this, referring to verblikes as <i>predicates</i> or <i>verb phrases</i>, for instance, is only temporary relief for the learner before they dive into the deep syntax or (god forbid) the semantics and find that nothing that they’ve learned corresponds to what verb phrases and predicates actually look like.<br />
<br />
So the real purpose of saying <i>verblike</i> instead of, say, <i>verb phrase</i> is '''not to use deep syntax terms to describe (and teach) surface-level Toaq'''. We want to match simple explanations with equally simple terms while remaining correct, and this is the solution we’re taking – save for pulling random Toaq roots out of our hat (like Lojban does with <i>sumti</i> and <i>selbri</i> and about everything else under the sun).<br />
<br />
== Other options considered or to consider ==<br />
* We already say <i>[[adverbial]]</i> – why not then <i>'''nominal'''</i>, <i>'''verbal'''</i>?</div>Uakcihttps://toaq.me/index.php?title=File:He_leo_ma%C4%B1_j%C3%AD_b%C3%A1q_pa%C4%B1_%C3%A2q.png&diff=1753File:He leo maı jí báq paı âq.png2023-12-05T23:39:33Z<p>Uakci: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Uakcihttps://toaq.me/index.php?title=Focus,_topic,_cleft&diff=1750Focus, topic, cleft2023-12-05T21:07:50Z<p>Uakci: use template:t wherever possible</p>
<hr />
<div>{{orange|[[Focus|{{t|kú}}]]}}, {{green|[[Topic|{{t|bï}}]]}}, and {{blue|[[Cleft|{{t|nä}}]]}} are three particles that serve closely related pragmatic functions. Let’s examine the ways in which they differ.<br />
<br />
== Main use ==<br />
{{Example|1=Báq shamu {{green|bï}}, mí Laqme {{blue|nä}} soqcho hóa {{orange|kú}} báq soe.|2={{green|As for}} apples, Laqme<span style="font-size: 250%; line-height: 0;">{{blue|,}}</span> she likes {{orange|''sour''}} ones best.}}<br />
<br />
In this sentence…<br />
* {{green|{{t|bï}}}} is a [[topic]] marker. It identifies what the sentence is about. Here, it tells the listener that we're making some point about apples.<br />
* {{blue|{{t|nä}}}} is a [[cleft]] verb. It purely helps us rearrange words when we feel like it. Here, it achieves a pseudo SVO word order.<br />
* {{orange|{{t|kú}}}} is a [[focus]] marker. It identifies the new or contrasting information in the sentence: What apples does Laqme like? ''Sour'' apples.<br />
<br />
== Syntax ==<br />
* The syntax of {{green|{{t|bï}}}} is: {{t|{{small caps|topic}} bï {{small caps|comment}}}}.<br />
** {{small caps|topic}} must be a [[definite]] [[noun phrase]], like <i>the cat</i> or <i>that I love you</i>. If you want to refer back to the topic, you may not use {{t|hóa}}, but you may use any of the other strategies available to you, like {{t|máq}} or {{t|hụ́ꝡa}}.<br />
* The word {{blue|{{t|nä}}}} can be used to front [[noun phrase]]s and [[adverbial]]s.<br />
** When fronting a noun phrase, the syntax is {{t|{{small caps|noun phrase}} nä {{small caps|relative clause}}}}. The [[relative clause]] must [[anaphora|refer back]] to the noun phrase, either using {{t|hóa}} or an appropriate [[pronoun]] like {{t|hó}}.<br />
** When fronting an adverbial, the syntax is {{t|{{small caps|adverbial}} nä {{small caps|clause}}}}. In this usage, {{t|hóa}} is not used because there’s nothing to refer back to.<br />
* The word {{orange|{{t|kú}}}} goes in front of the focused piece of information. To focus a single word instead of a whole constituent, you can use the prefix form {{orange|{{t|ku-}}}}. See [[Simple Focus]].<br />
<br />
== Gotchas ==<br />
* Focus is often rendered as an English cleft in translation: {{t|Shao paı jí <u>kú súq</u>}} <i><u>It’s you who</u> I want to be friends with</i>. However, Toaq clefts do not impart focus: {{t|Súq nä shao paı jí hóa}} is just another way of saying {{t|Shao paı jí súq}}. You may, however, use the two features in tandem: {{t|Kú súq nä shao paı jí hóa}}.<br />
* For noun phrases, {{t|bï}} does not bind {{t|hóa}}. You must use another anaphoric pronoun if you want to refer back to the topic. The crucial difference is that {{t|bï}}’s complement, the topic established, is not required to appear in the clause! So for example, this is valid Toaq (and valid English, although some languages like Japanese like this pattern better than English does) and the extra specification in square brackets is not required at all:<br />
*: {{t|Báq kası bï, he duq garabıa jí}} <i>{{t|[gêm máq]}}</i>{{t|.}}<br />
*: <i>As for walnuts, I tend to get nausea <i>[from them]</i>.</i></div>Uakcihttps://toaq.me/index.php?title=Focus%E2%80%93cleft_merger&diff=1748Focus–cleft merger2023-12-05T19:16:48Z<p>Uakci: reduce intro to a link to Topic, focus, cleft; add a section on {{t|ná}}, which I just find so cute</p>
<hr />
<div>This {{proposal}}, which may colloquially be termed the {{class|kü}} proposal, wishes to merge these seemingly heterogeneous features together: [[focus, topic, cleft]]s. In short, it does this by allowing focus markers to conjugate into clefts ({{class|kú}} → {{class|kü}}), and then runs the logic the opposite way to arrive at {{t|bí}}.<br />
<br />
== Focus marker clefts ==<br />
We’ll be assuming the [[Simple Focus]] proposal applies. It makes all focus markers always bear {{done|2}}, displacing the complex and incomplete rules found in the refgram. It also frees {{done|3}} for us, which will be useful right below:<br />
<br />
Essentially, allow {{t|{{small caps|focus}} {{class|kü}} {{small caps|phrase}}}}, with exactly the same semantics as {{t|{{class|kú}} {{small caps|focus}} nä {{small caps|phrase}}}}. {{t|hóa}} is still bound in case of a noun phrase. Examples examples:<br />
<br />
:{{t|Máoja kü chuq jí hóa}}<br />
:[= {{t|Kú máoja nä chuq jí hóa}}]<br />
:[= {{t|Chuq jí kú máoja}}]<br />
:‘It is the banana I’m eating’<br />
<br />
:{{t|Báq kanı tö deq peo hóa ní chuao}}<br />
:[= {{t|Tó báq kanı nä deq peo hóa ní chuao}}]<br />
:[= {{t|Deq peo tó báq kanı ní chuao}}]<br />
:‘Only rabbits can slip through this hole’<br />
<br />
:{{t|Ní chuao jüaq deq peo báq kanı hóa}}<br />
:[= {{t|Júaq ní chuao nä deq peo báq kanı hóa}}]<br />
:[= {{t|Deq peo báq kanı júaq ní chuao}}]<br />
:‘It is even this hole that rabbits are able to pass’<br />
<br />
:{{t|He râo báq kıachaq bëı loı jí tú}}<br />
:[= {{t|He, ꝡä béı râo báq kıachaq nä loı jí tú}}]<br />
:‘It’s on Mondays (not on some other implied occasion / under some other implied condition) that I hate everything’<br />
<br />
The win from this is that you get to combine focus and clefting, bringing the focused material to the front. This operation would remain optional, i.e., {{t|Chuq jí kú máoja}} would still remain in the language for you to use.<br />
<br />
== The focus marker {{t|bí}} ==<br />
The idea is to take the generic pattern above, flip it, and apply it to {{t|bï}}:<br />
<br />
: {{t|{{small caps|topic}} bï {{small caps|phrase}}}} → {{t|bí {{small caps|topic}} nä {{small caps|phrase}}}} {{t|{{small caps|phrase}} … bí {{small caps|topic}} …}}<br />
<br />
For instance:<br />
: {{t|Báq maoja bï, he bu cho jí hóa}} ‘As for bananas, I don’t like them’<br />
: {{t|Bí báq maoja nä he bu cho jí hóa}} ‘ibid.’<br />
: {{t|He bu cho jí bí báq maoja}} ≈ ‘I don’t like bananas, if we’re speaking of bananas’<br />
(Note that there is no ''semantic'' difference between these three forms – we’re just trying to demonstrate what this newborn {{t|bí}} means by reflecting it in the translation.)<br />
<br />
The win here, in turn, is that we now get to topicalize any part of the sentence ''in afterthought'', including at the far end of the sentence (as in the example – {{t|bí báq maoja}} came in at the veeery end). In addition, we may now topicalize any grammatical structure that {{class|kú}} can: {{t|he bı̣maı jí tó báq leuq}} ‘I love – as far as love/loving goes – queers and no others’.<br />
<br />
Also note that this would extend {{t|bï}}’s range to adverbials. The official preference for AdverbialP in CompTopicP would be for it to mean something different than what {{t|nä}} does<ref>[https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/889589074011230230/1073948834146820157 Hoemaı on Discord]: {{transcript<br />
|[Whether an AdjunctP can be the topic is u]ndecided currently, but if yes, then its meaning would be "as for [it/something being] today, I go ...", and not "Today, I go" ({{t|Níchaq bï fa jí}} or {{t|Râo níchaq nä fa jí}} are the alternatives).}}</ref>. In our proposal, we have to give {{t|bí}}/{{t|bï}} equal rights, so semantically we may assume that {{t|{{small caps|clause}} … bí {{small caps|phrase}} …}} actually compiles down to what would officially be phrased as<br />
: {{t|{{small caps|phrase}} bï, {{small caps|phrase}} nä {{small caps|clause}}}}.<br />
In other words, the focused (or should I say topicked?) clause is reasserted (kept intact), but also raised/copied as the topic. So for {{t|Fa jí bí râo níchaq}}, instead of ‘As for [something being] today, I go’ (see reference), we should expect ‘As for [something being] today, I go today’.<br />
<br />
== {{t|ná}} ==<br />
One silly consequence of running the {{tone|2}} ↔︎ {{tone|3}} logic both ways is that we may arrive at {{t|ná}}. {{t|ná}}’s definition (denotation) would literally be “do nothing” (more formally, λ𝑓𝑥.𝑓𝑥), so what use could it have? The one use I can think of is grammatical clarity: you can use it like a spoken comma or bracket or fence/signpost to make your long sentences easier to stomach:<br />
<blockquote><poem><br />
{{t|Jeq suao {{orange|ná, ꝡé do súq jí hóa,}} {{green|ná, ꝡé do jí súq hóa}} da.}}<br />
<i>{{orange|The things you’ve given me}} are equally important as {{green|the things I’ve given you}}.</i><br />
</poem></blockquote><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/></div>Uakcihttps://toaq.me/index.php?title=Focus,_topic,_cleft&diff=1747Focus, topic, cleft2023-12-05T19:09:13Z<p>Uakci: Created page with "{{orange|kú}}}}, {{green|bï}}}}, and {{blue|nä}}}} are three particles that serve closely related pragmatic functions. Let’s examine the ways in which they differ. == Main use == {| class=wikitable ! {{orange|kú}} ! {{green|bï}} ! {{blue|nä}} |- | Identify the foreground, foremost important part of what you’re saying. | Identify the background – the pivot on which you’re making your point. | Rearrange words. |- ! c..."</p>
<hr />
<div>{{orange|[[Focus|{{t|kú}}]]}}, {{green|[[Topic|{{t|bï}}]]}}, and {{blue|[[Cleft|{{t|nä}}]]}} are three particles that serve closely related pragmatic functions. Let’s examine the ways in which they differ.<br />
<br />
== Main use ==<br />
{| class=wikitable<br />
! {{orange|kú}}<br />
! {{green|bï}}<br />
! {{blue|nä}}<br />
|-<br />
| Identify the foreground, foremost important part of what you’re saying.<br />
| Identify the background – the pivot on which you’re making your point.<br />
| Rearrange words.<br />
|-<br />
! colspan=3 | Example<br />
|-<br />
| colspan=3 | {{green|As for}} apples, because I dislike sweet ones<span style="font-size: 400%; line-height: 0;">{{blue|,}}</span> I like {{orange|''savory''}} ones best.<br />
|-<br />
| I want you to know it’s flavor we’re talking about, and it’s the savoriness that I care about in apples.<br />
| I want you to know that I’m going to be talking about apples.<br />
| I didn’t feel like saying <i>I like savory ones best because I dislike sweet ones</i>, in that order.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
== Syntax ==<br />
{| class=wikitable<br />
! {{orange|kú}}<br />
! {{green|bï}}<br />
! {{blue|nä}}<br />
|-<br />
| rowspan=2 style=vertical-align:top | Goes in front of the phrase you want to foreground. <br> As a prefix ({{t|ku-}}), attaches to the single word you want to foreground.<br />
| rowspan=2 style=vertical-align:top | {{t|{{small caps|topic}} bï, {{small caps|comment}}}}. <br> <small>{{small caps|topic}} must be a [[definite]] [[noun phrase]], like <i>the cat</i> or <i>that I love you</i>. <br> If you want to refer back to the topic, you may not use {{t|hóa}}, but you may use any of the other strategies available to you, like {{t|máq}} or {{t|hụ́ꝡa}}.</small><br />
| {{t|{{small caps|noun phrase}} nä {{small caps|[[relative clause]]}}}}. <br> <small>{{small caps|clause}} must [[anaphora|refer back]] to the {{small caps|noun phrase}}, either using [[relative clause|{{t|hóa}}]] or an appropriate pronoun like {{t|hó}} or {{t|hụ́ja}}.</small><br />
|-<br />
| {{t|{{small caps|[[adverbial]]}} nä {{small caps|clause}}}}. <br> <small>In this usage, {{t|hóa}} is not used because there’s nothing to refer back to.</small><br />
|}<br />
<br />
== Gotchas ==<br />
* Focus is often rendered as an English cleft in translation: {{t|Shao paı jí <u>kú súq</u>}} <i><u>It’s you who</u> I want to be friends with</i>. However, Toaq clefts do not impart focus: {{t|Súq nä shao paı jí hóa}} is just a convoluted way of saying {{t|Shao paı jí súq}}. You may, however, use the two features in tandem: {{t|Kú súq nä shao paı jí hóa}}.<br />
* For noun phrases, {{t|bï}} does not bind {{t|hóa}}. You must use another anaphoric pronoun if you want to refer back to the topic. The crucial difference is that {{t|bï}}’s complement, the topic established, is not required to appear in the clause! So for example, this is valid Toaq (and valid English, although some languages like Japanese like this pattern better than English does) and the extra specification in square brackets is not required at all:<br />
*: {{t|Báq kası bï, he duq garabıa jí}} <i>{{t|[gêm máq]}}</i>{{t|.}}<br />
*: <i>As for walnuts, I tend to get nausea <i>[from them]</i>.</i></div>Uakci