User:Laqme/Object-incorporating particle: Difference between revisions

From The Toaq Wiki
(Created page with "Toaq could have an '''object-incorporating particle''' like Lojban's <code>be</code>. Let's call it «{{t|do}}» (in neutral tone). The idea is that {{t|vẻrb do óbject}} is a new intransitive verb that has the object slot filled. So, {{t|fıeq do lúa}} means "___ invents the story." {{Example|Pủ fỉeq do lúa jí da.|I invented-the-story.}} From another perspective, {{t|do}} just makes an object-incorporating verb out of the preceding verb: {{t|pỏga do}}...")
 
m (Uakci moved page User:Lynn/Object-incorporating particle to User:Laqme/Object-incorporating particle: Automatically moved page while renaming the user "Lynn" to "Laqme")
 
(3 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown)
Line 13: Line 13:


== Opacity ==
== Opacity ==
Current object-incorporating verbs are said to be "opaque": quantifications like {{t|po tu poq}} are restricted to the small "{{t|po}} + object clause", rather than the encompassing clause.
I'm not sure if {{t|hao do}} should be [[opaque]] like {{t|po}}, but I think it makes sense. Consequences include:


Another way to think about this is that the quantifications don't leave the ''definition'' of the new verb.
# {{t|Fíeq do sıa lua}} means "the one who invents no stories" rather than "no story's inventor". This is definitely more intuitive to me.
 
Thus {{t|po tu pỏq}} always means "[∀P: poq(P)] ___ is P's", or in English: "___ is everyone's".
 
And thus {{t|<u>po tu pỏq</u> sa kủa}} means "some rooms <u>are everyone's</u>", regardless of the other quantifiers in the sentence, and not something like "∀[P: poq(P)] ∃[K: kua(K)] K is P's."
 
I'm not sure if {{t|hao do}} should be "opaque" in the same way, but I think it makes sense. Consequences include:
 
# {{t|Fíeq do sıa lua}} means "the one who invents no stories" rather than "no story's inventor".
# {{t|Lỉaı gão do tu rua sa apı}} means something different from the old {{t|Lỉaı gào tu rua sa apı}}. This might be fine? Not sure which is more intuitive. Either is still achievable with prenex.
# {{t|Lỉaı gão do tu rua sa apı}} means something different from the old {{t|Lỉaı gào tu rua sa apı}}. This might be fine? Not sure which is more intuitive. Either is still achievable with prenex.

Latest revision as of 19:48, 24 April 2024

Toaq could have an object-incorporating particle like Lojban's be. Let's call it «do» (in neutral tone).

The idea is that vẻrb do óbject is a new intransitive verb that has the object slot filled. So, fıeq do lúa means "___ invents the story."

Pủ fỉeq do lúa jí da.
I invented-the-story.

From another perspective, do just makes an object-incorporating verb out of the preceding verb: pỏga do acts the same as pỏ.

There are two cool things that fall out of this beyond just making strange "VOS" sentences:

  1. Used with rising tone, it lets us say things like fíeq do lúa "the inventor of the story" (Lojban le finti be le lisri).
  2. Used with falling creaky tone, it lets us get rid of mid-falling tone by phrasing shàq jío as shãq do jío: "in front of the building". So this particle realizes Full Arguments.

Opacity

I'm not sure if hao do should be opaque like po, but I think it makes sense. Consequences include:

  1. Fíeq do sıa lua means "the one who invents no stories" rather than "no story's inventor". This is definitely more intuitive to me.
  2. Lỉaı gão do tu rua sa apı means something different from the old Lỉaı gào tu rua sa apı. This might be fine? Not sure which is more intuitive. Either is still achievable with prenex.
Retrieved from "https://toaq.me/index.php?title=User:Laqme/Object-incorporating_particle&oldid=1906"