Focus–cleft merger: Difference between revisions
(→The part where we let focus markers be clefts: remove repeated example sentence) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
(→{{t|ná}}: use {{done}} instead of {{tone}}) |
||
(6 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
This {{proposal}}, which may colloquially be termed the {{class|kü}} proposal, wishes to merge | 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}}. | ||
== | == Focus marker clefts == | ||
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: | |||
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: | |||
Essentially, allow {{t| | |||
:{{t|Máoja kü chuq jí hóa}} | :{{t|Máoja kü chuq jí hóa}} | ||
Line 21: | Line 16: | ||
:‘Only rabbits can slip through this hole’ | :‘Only rabbits can slip through this hole’ | ||
:{{t|Ní chuao | :{{t|Ní chuao jüaq deq peo báq kanı hóa}} | ||
:[= {{t| | :[= {{t|Júaq ní chuao nä deq peo báq kanı hóa}}] | ||
:[= {{t|Deq peo báq kanı | :[= {{t|Deq peo báq kanı júaq ní chuao}}] | ||
:‘It is | :‘It is even this hole that rabbits are able to pass’ | ||
:{{t|He râo báq kıachaq bëı loı jí tú}} | :{{t|He râo báq kıachaq bëı loı jí tú}} | ||
Line 30: | Line 25: | ||
:‘It’s on Mondays (not on some other implied occasion / under some other implied condition) that I hate everything’ | :‘It’s on Mondays (not on some other implied occasion / under some other implied condition) that I hate everything’ | ||
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. | |||
The | == The focus marker {{t|bí}} == | ||
The idea is to take the generic pattern above, flip it, and apply it to {{t|bï}}: | The idea is to take the generic pattern above, flip it, and apply it to {{t|bï}}: | ||
: {{t| | : {{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}} …}} | ||
For instance: | For instance: | ||
Line 47: | Line 41: | ||
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 | 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 | ||
|[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| | |[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 | ||
: {{t| | : {{t|{{small caps|phrase}} bï, {{small caps|phrase}} nä {{small caps|clause}}}}. | ||
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’. | 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’. | ||
== | == {{t|ná}} == | ||
One silly consequence of running the {{done|2}} ↔︎ {{done|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: | |||
<blockquote><poem> | |||
{{t|Jeq suao {{orange|ná, ꝡé do súq jí hóa,}} {{green|ná, ꝡé do jí súq hóa}} da.}} | |||
<i>{{orange|The things you’ve given me}} are equally important as {{green|the things I’ve given you}}.</i> | |||
</poem></blockquote> | |||
: | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||
<references/> | <references/> |
Latest revision as of 19:08, 6 December 2023
This proposal, which may colloquially be termed the kü proposal, wishes to merge these seemingly heterogeneous features together: focus, topic, clefts. In short, it does this by allowing focus markers to conjugate into clefts (kú → kü), and then runs the logic the opposite way to arrive at bí.
Focus marker clefts
We’ll be assuming the Simple Focus proposal applies. It makes all focus markers always bear , displacing the complex and incomplete rules found in the refgram. It also frees for us, which will be useful right below:
Essentially, allow focus kü phrase, with exactly the same semantics as kú focus nä phrase. hóa is still bound in case of a noun phrase. Examples examples:
- Máoja kü chuq jí hóa
- [= Kú máoja nä chuq jí hóa]
- [= Chuq jí kú máoja]
- ‘It is the banana I’m eating’
- Báq kanı tö deq peo hóa ní chuao
- [= Tó báq kanı nä deq peo hóa ní chuao]
- [= Deq peo tó báq kanı ní chuao]
- ‘Only rabbits can slip through this hole’
- Ní chuao jüaq deq peo báq kanı hóa
- [= Júaq ní chuao nä deq peo báq kanı hóa]
- [= Deq peo báq kanı júaq ní chuao]
- ‘It is even this hole that rabbits are able to pass’
- He râo báq kıachaq bëı loı jí tú
- [= He, ꝡä béı râo báq kıachaq nä loı jí tú]
- ‘It’s on Mondays (not on some other implied occasion / under some other implied condition) that I hate everything’
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., Chuq jí kú máoja would still remain in the language for you to use.
The focus marker bí
The idea is to take the generic pattern above, flip it, and apply it to bï:
- topıc bï phrase → bí topıc nä phrase phrase … bí topıc …
For instance:
- Báq maoja bï, he bu cho jí hóa ‘As for bananas, I don’t like them’
- Bí báq maoja nä he bu cho jí hóa ‘ibid.’
- He bu cho jí bí báq maoja ≈ ‘I don’t like bananas, if we’re speaking of bananas’
(Note that there is no semantic difference between these three forms – we’re just trying to demonstrate what this newborn bí means by reflecting it in the translation.)
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 – bí báq maoja came in at the veeery end). In addition, we may now topicalize any grammatical structure that kú can: he bı̣maı jí tó báq leuq ‘I love – as far as love/loving goes – queers and no others’.
Also note that this would extend bï’s range to adverbials. The official preference for AdverbialP in CompTopicP would be for it to mean something different than what nä does[1]. In our proposal, we have to give bí/bï equal rights, so semantically we may assume that clause … bí phrase … actually compiles down to what would officially be phrased as
- phrase bï, phrase nä clause.
In other words, the focused (or should I say topicked?) clause is reasserted (kept intact), but also raised/copied as the topic. So for 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’.
ná
One silly consequence of running the ↔︎ logic both ways is that we may arrive at ná. 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:
Jeq suao ná, ꝡé do súq jí hóa, ná, ꝡé do jí súq hóa da.
The things you’ve given me are equally important as the things I’ve given you.
References
- ↑ Hoemaı on Discord: [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" (Níchaq bï fa jí or Râo níchaq nä fa jí are the alternatives).