Mö

Ꝡá is a proposal that establishes a new variant of 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:		Ruaq nháo, ꝡä ruqshua râo níchaq
should ꝡe…
Ⓐ	treat it as belonging to the subclause	Ruaq nháo, ꝡä ruqshua râo níchaq	‘They stated that it rained today’
Ⓑ	treat it as belonging to the root clause	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.

Hoemaı has also stated 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 ꝡa

Toaq has a tendency to branch heavily to the right, so why not allow the rightmost branch special rights? Enter ꝡá. Under the proposal, ꝡä would not capture clause-final adverbials (and would require beforethought rephrasing, as in ꝡä râo níchaq nä ruqshua), whereas 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).

	‘that’	‘if’	‘how much’
Non-adverbial-hoisting (Ⓐ)	ꝡä	mä	tïo
Adverbial-hoisting (Ⓑ)	ꝡá	má	tío

In this model, 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 ꝡá and should behave as expected.

Questions

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