Self-termination: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "It has been proposed that Toaq could have '''auto-terminating clauses'''. The idea is that you don't need to say {{t|cy}} when a subclause verb has all its arguments filled. You know that the next argument must belong to the outer clause, because the inner clause can't take any more arguments. {{Example|Mẻoca {{blue|lôı súq nháo}} jí.|{{blue|The fact that you hate them}} saddens me.}} It would be ungrammatical for {{t|jí}} to be a third argument to {{t|loı}}...") |
(explain a bit more) |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Toaq has '''self-terminating''' clauses. A subclause is "terminated" when it can't take any more arguments, and yet another positional argument follows. The "self-" reflects the fact that no explicit terminating particle is necessary. | |||
The | {{Example|Meoca {{blue|ꝡä loı súq nháo}} jí.|{{blue|The fact that you hate her}} saddens me.}} | ||
It would be ungrammatical for {{t|jí}} to be a third argument to {{t|loı}}, which is "full" — so it must be a second argument to {{t|meoca}}. | |||
{{Example|Bua ké poq {{blue|ꝡë luı do hóa jí ní}} ní doaq.|The person {{blue|who gave me this}} lives in this city.}} | |||
It would be ungrammatical for {{t|ní doaq}} to be a fourth argument to {{t|do}}, so the ꝡë-clause closes before it. | |||
These examples are intentionally written without commas to clarify that the comma isn't what closes a subclause. But in practice, it's considered proper Toaq punctuation style to write a comma at the start and end of a subclause: {{t|Bua ké poq, {{blue|ꝡë luı do hóa jí ní}}, ní doaq.}} | |||
== A limitation == | |||
One limitation is that self-termination isn't activated by adverbials, so it's hard to add an adverbial to the end of a main clause with a subclause object. | |||
{{Example|Ruaq súq, {{blue|ꝡä jaı súq râo púchaq}}.|You say {{blue|that you were "happy yesterday"}}.}} | |||
{{Example|Ruaq súq, {{blue|ꝡä jaı súq {{red|???}}}} râo púchaq.|You said {{blue|that you are "happy"}}, yesterday.}} | |||
Without {{t|cy}} (subclause terminator from previous Toaq versions) at our disposal, we have no choice but to move the adverbial elsewhere.{{Example|Ruaq râo púchaq súq, {{blue|ꝡä jaı súq}}.|You said yesterday {{blue|that you are "happy"}}.}} | |||
Latest revision as of 17:32, 21 March 2023
Toaq has self-terminating clauses. A subclause is "terminated" when it can't take any more arguments, and yet another positional argument follows. The "self-" reflects the fact that no explicit terminating particle is necessary.
Meoca ꝡä loı súq nháo jí.
The fact that you hate her saddens me.
It would be ungrammatical for jí to be a third argument to loı, which is "full" — so it must be a second argument to meoca.
Bua ké poq ꝡë luı do hóa jí ní ní doaq.
The person who gave me this lives in this city.
It would be ungrammatical for ní doaq to be a fourth argument to do, so the ꝡë-clause closes before it.
These examples are intentionally written without commas to clarify that the comma isn't what closes a subclause. But in practice, it's considered proper Toaq punctuation style to write a comma at the start and end of a subclause: Bua ké poq, ꝡë luı do hóa jí ní, ní doaq.
A limitation
One limitation is that self-termination isn't activated by adverbials, so it's hard to add an adverbial to the end of a main clause with a subclause object.
Ruaq súq, ꝡä jaı súq râo púchaq.
You say that you were "happy yesterday".
Ruaq súq, ꝡä jaı súq ??? râo púchaq.
You said that you are "happy", yesterday.
Without cy (subclause terminator from previous Toaq versions) at our disposal, we have no choice but to move the adverbial elsewhere.
Ruaq râo púchaq súq, ꝡä jaı súq.
You said yesterday that you are "happy".