Mö: Difference between revisions

(5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{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.

{{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.

== The problem ==

~~The existing problem is with adverbials~~, ~~namely the fact that it’s tempting~~ to ~~have~~ the ~~cake and eat it too when it comes to choosing between two parses of an adverbial at~~ the ~~end of a sentence:~~

Given an adverbial in a complex sentence like {{t|Ruaq nháo ꝡä ruqshua râo níchaq}}, should we treat it as belonging to the subclause or the root clause?

{~~| class=wikitable~~

{{Example|Ruaq nháo, ꝡä ruqshua râo níchaq|‘They stated that it rained today.’ (Behavior Ⓐ)}}

~~! colspan=2 | Given an adverbial in a complex sentence like:~~

{{Example|Ruaq nháo, ꝡä ruqshua, râo níchaq|‘They stated today that it rained.’ (Behavior Ⓑ)}}

~~| colspan=2 | {{t|Ruaq nháo, ꝡä ruqshua râo níchaq}}~~

|-

~~| colspan=4 style="text-align: center;" | should ꝡe…~~

|-

~~! Ⓐ~~

~~! treat it as belonging to the subclause~~

| {{t|Ruaq nháo, ꝡä ruqshua râo níchaq}}

| ‘They stated that it rained today’

|-

~~! Ⓑ~~

~~! treat it as belonging to the root clause~~

| {{t|Ruaq nháo, ꝡä ruqshua, râo níchaq}}

| ‘They stated today that it ~~rained’~~

|}

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 ~~but doesn’t offer behavior Ⓐ’s convenience~~.

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}}.

[[Hoemaı]] has also stated<ref>https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/646607726817968138/1088465798047207496 {{Transcript|<poem>

Line 31:

Line 17:

</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”.

== The solution: ~~two kinds~~ of {{~~class~~|ꝡa}} ==

== The solution: a new kind of {{t|ꝡä}} ==

Toaq has a tendency to branch heavily to the right, so why not allow the rightmost branch special rights? Enter {{t|ꝡá}}. Under the proposal, {{t|ꝡä}} would not capture clause-final adverbials ~~(and would require beforethought rephrasing, as in {{t|ꝡä râo níchaq nä ruqshua}})~~, whereas {{t|ꝡá}} would, ~~except that its allowable placement would be confined in that it~~ can only appear as the final element in a sentence (save for the [[speech act]] particle).

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).

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.

{| class=wikitable

Line 41:

Line 29:

! ‘how much’

|-

! ~~Non-adverbial-hoisting~~ (Ⓐ)

! Big clause Ⓐ

| {{t|mö (ꝡa)}}

| {{t|mö ma}}

| {{t|mö tıo}}

|-

! Small clause Ⓑ

| {{t|ꝡä}}

| {{t|mä}}

| {{t|tïo}}

|-

~~! Adverbial-hoisting (Ⓑ)~~

~~| {{t|ꝡá}}~~

~~| {{t|má}}~~

~~| {{t|tío}}~~

|}

~~In this model,~~ {{~~class~~|ꝡá}} ~~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|ꝡá}} ~~and should behave as expected~~.

{{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:

I appreciate those who remember that I’ve had diabetes for the last three years.

</poem></blockquote>

({{t|ꝡâ}} would result in something that parses as I’ve appreciated those who remember that I have diabetes for three years.)

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}}.

~~== Questions ==~~

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.

~~The particle used to be called~~ {{t|mö}} ~~– wouldn’t it be better to leave it~~ as ~~that given that {{t|má tío}} are going to~~ be ~~much rarer~~ in ~~practice, and also because~~ {{t|mö}} ~~would let us retain the object-incorporation form {{t|mô}}?~~

== References ==

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{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.
+{{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.
 == The problem ==
-The existing problem is with adverbials, namely the fact that it’s tempting to have the cake and eat it too when it comes to choosing between two parses of an adverbial at the end of a sentence:
+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?
-{| class=wikitable
+{{Example|Ruaq nháo, <u>ꝡä ruqshua râo níchaq</u>|‘They stated <u>that it rained today</u>.’ (Behavior Ⓐ)}}
-! colspan=2 | Given an adverbial in a complex sentence like:
+{{Example|<u>Ruaq nháo,</u> ꝡä ruqshua, <u>râo níchaq</u>|‘<u>They stated today</u> that it rained.’ (Behavior Ⓑ)}}
-| colspan=2 | {{t|Ruaq nháo, ꝡä ruqshua râo níchaq}}
-|-
-| colspan=4 style="text-align: center;" | should ꝡe…
-|-
-! Ⓐ
-! treat it as belonging to the subclause
-| {{t|Ruaq nháo, <u>ꝡä ruqshua râo níchaq</u>}}
-| ‘They stated <u>that it rained today</u>’
-|-
-! Ⓑ
-! treat it as belonging to the root clause
-| {{t|<u>Ruaq nháo,</u> ꝡä ruqshua, <u>râo níchaq</u>}}
-| ‘<u>They stated today</u> that it rained’
-|}
-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 but doesn’t offer behavior Ⓐ’s convenience.
+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}}.
 [[Hoemaı]] has also stated<ref>https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/646607726817968138/1088465798047207496 {{Transcript|<poem>
@@ Line 31: / Line 17: @@
 </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”.
-== The solution: two kinds of {{class|ꝡa}} ==
+== The solution: a new kind of {{t|ꝡä}} ==
-Toaq has a tendency to branch heavily to the right, so why not allow the rightmost branch special rights? Enter {{t|ꝡá}}. Under the proposal, {{t|ꝡä}} would not capture clause-final adverbials (and would require beforethought rephrasing, as in {{t|ꝡä râo níchaq nä ruqshua}}), whereas {{t|ꝡá}} would, except that its allowable placement would be confined in that it can only appear as the final element in a sentence (save for the [[speech act]] particle).
+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).
+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.
 {| class=wikitable
@@ Line 41: / Line 29: @@
 ! ‘how much’
 |-
-! Non-adverbial-hoisting (Ⓐ)
+! Big clause Ⓐ
+| {{t|mö (ꝡa)}}
+| {{t|mö ma}}
+| {{t|mö tıo}}
+|-
+! Small clause Ⓑ
 | {{t|ꝡä}}
 | {{t|mä}}
 | {{t|tïo}}
-|-
-! Adverbial-hoisting (Ⓑ)
-| {{t|ꝡá}}
-| {{t|má}}
-| {{t|tío}}
 |}
-In this model, {{class|ꝡá}} 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|ꝡá}} and should behave as expected.
+{{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:
+<blockquote><poem>
+{{t|He mıaqgaı jí báq moaq, mô dıabete jí pêaboı báq nıaq saq.}}
+<i>I appreciate those who remember that I’ve had diabetes for the last three years.</i>
+</poem></blockquote>
+({{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>.)
+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}}.
-== Questions ==
+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.
-The particle used to be called {{t|mö}} – wouldn’t it be better to leave it as that given that {{t|má tío}} are going to be much rarer in practice, and also because {{t|mö}} would let us retain the object-incorporation form {{t|mô}}?
 == References ==
 <references />