Now, here are a few examples: xumpijida = 'snowfall' xumpijipida = 'blizzard' xumpijigeda = 'snowstorm' xumpijisoda = 'snow flurries' xumpijijuda = 'a light dusting of snow' guanaida = 'lake' guanaipida = 'great lake' guanaigeda = 'large lake' guanaisoda = 'pond' guanaijuda = 'pondlet', 'water hole' guajida = 'hot spring' guajigeda = 'geyser' guajijuda = 'mudpot' Now, keep in mind that when a scalar polarity MCM is immediately preceded and/ or followed by a numeric morpheme, it will have a comparative interpretation rather than an augmentative or diminutive interpretation. For example, the word "guajigezida" means 'three more hot springs'. It does NOT mean 'three geysers'. If we wish to say 'three geysers', we must use the expression "zino guajigeda". I'm not sure if it's wise to apply polarity MCMs to living species, because species are discreet and unique. The polarity MCMs are ideal, however, for entities that span a range of sizes and intensities, such as 'lakes', 'geysers', 'storms', etc. For living species, it would probably be more useful to define approximate age ranges so that the polarity MCMs CAN be applied to living species as well as to human institutions. These would be defined in human terms, and those which are also applicable to other species could be used when needed. For example, we could use them as equivalents to the English diminutive "-let" in "piglet" or to the diminutive "-ling" in "yearling". Here is one possible scheme: -pi- 'elder' -ge- 'adult' -so- 'child' -ju- 'infant' Keep in mind that "-pi-" derivations are a subset of "-ge-" derivations, and that "-ju-" derivations are a subset of "-so-" derivations. Thus, an 'elder' is an 'adult', but an 'adult' is not necesarily an 'elder'. Ditto for 'child/ infant'. It would also be useful to have two MCMs to indicate positive and negative QUALITY. The positive MCM would have the very general meaning of 'good' or 'desirable', and the negative MCM would have the very general meaning of 'bad' or 'undesirable'. These MCMs could be used to make distinctions such as the following: Negative MCM Unmarked Positive MCM ------------ -------- ------------ 'hovel/dump' 'house' '(nice) home' 'rascal/scamp' 'person' 'good fellow/nice guy' 'infamous/notorious' 'famous/renowned' 'celebrated/popular' 'cur' 'dog' 'pooch' 'scrawl/scribble' 'write' 'scribe' 'brat' 'child' 'angel (figurative)' Some languages (e.g. Russian and Italian) use diminutive or augmentative morphology to indicate that the speaker feels affection or dislike for the named individual. English does something similar in expressions like "doggie", "sweetie", etc. There is really no need to create new MCMs to perform these functions, since they are already included in the meaning of the quality MCMs; i.e., one automatically has a positive attitude towards something that is 'good' or 'desirable'. If a speaker really needs to emphasize affection or dislike, he can use appropriate adjectives such as English "dear" or "despised". The positive and negative quality MCMs can also be used to make the distinction between beneficiary and maleficiary, as we discussed earlier: He voted IN FAVOR OF the resolution. He voted AGAINST the resolution. In summary, we will be able to use the complete set of scalar MCMs to create augmentatives and diminutives based on size and/or intensity, a single 'positive quality' MCM, and a single 'negative quality' MCM. If we wish to combine magnitude AND quality, we can use two MCMs. For example, the word for 'mansion' could be created with a polarity MCM to indicate size and with the positive quality MCM to indicate quality. We could also use a quality MCM twice to indicate extreme positive quality (perhaps related to royalty?) or extreme negative quality. 16.0 REGISTER VARIATIONS (HONORIFICS AND PEJORATIVES) Many languages have words or morphemes that indicate the social status of the speaker relative to the listener or to a third party. The most common way of marking these differences is by means of special pronouns. For example, a more polite 2nd person pronoun can be used when speaking to a superior or elder. However, these distinctions are not only made with pronouns. There are also many words, other than pronouns, that are only used in certain social contexts. For example, most English speakers will use the words "shit", "crap", "feces", "do-do", and "number 2" in entirely different settings, depending on who they are speaking with. In fact, some speakers will completely avoid using certain words, either because they are too formal or too rude. For example, many speakers will not use the 'dirty' word "shit" at all, while others may not use 'big' words like "explicate" or "obfuscation", or 'pretty' words like "lovely" or "marvelous". Some languages also have words that differ in register that are effectively REQUIRED in certain contexts. Cambodian is a language that is especially rich in this respect. For example, there are three completely different words that mean 'to sleep'. The first is used when the sleeper is a superior or someone especially deserving of respect; the second is used when the sleeper is the speaker or a person of equal status; and the third is used when the sleeper is of lower status. Words or morphemes that indicate respect are normally called _honorifics_, while those which indicate disrespect are called _pejoratives_. In my opinion, the best way to deal with these register variations is to create special MCMs for honorifics, pejoratives, and other register variations. This approach is similar to the honorific affixes of Korean and Japanese. To implement this in our sample language, I will use the following MCMs: -xemna- fawning, subservient (macro "xemna" = "tenko + ge") -tenko- humble, inferior -mio- very polite, very formal, very respectful (macro "mio" = "zai + ge") -zai- polite/formal/respectful - used in formal speech and writing -cau- informal, slang - commonly used but not in formal speech or writing e.g. "sleazy", "goofy", "doll", "cop", "(nice and) cozy", "humongous", "ain't", "vamoose", "hunk", "nerd", "dude", "pig" = 'sloppy person' -loi- contemptuous, rude, insulting e.g. "jerk", "chink", "fuz", "whore", "wop", "kike", "queer", "faggot", "nigger", "pig" = 'policeman' -pie- vulgar, filthy, tasteless e.g. "shithead" and all 'forbidden' words and expressions Also, the above are just SOME of the possible registers. You may also want to create MCMs for other registers, such as 'macho' and 'effeminate', or an MCM to indicate conceit/superiority. Note that "-xemna-" and "-mio-" are actually macros. Other degrees can also be created. For example, if we wanted to create a register indicating 'groveling' or 'total abasement', we could use "tenkopi" or even "xemnapi". 16.1 LEXICAL REGISTER The register MCMs can be applied to any word to indicate its social context. When intentionally used in the WRONG context, they would be interpreted as rudeness, unacceptable familiarity, excessive fawning, etc. An unmarked expression would be interpreted as 'neutral', and would be used in the vast majority of cases. Pronouns of varying degrees of politeness can be easily formed. For example, the 2nd person pronoun "dustuda", meaning 'you', would become: dustumioda = old English "thee", French "vous", German "Sie", etc. dustucauda = old English "thou", French "tu", German "du", etc. Nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc. can also have their register changed. For example, if a neutral word meaning 'feces' is "dengafada", then the word for 'crap' would be "dengafaloida" and the word for 'shit' would be "dengafapieda". [This word is both filthy AND flowery. I'll discuss SHORTER swear words below.] It is important to emphasize that the register MCMs always reflect the attitude of the speaker toward the entity that is being modified by the MCM. For example, if the 'contemptuous' MCM is used with the pronoun meaning 'you', it shows that the speaker feels contempt for the listener. If it is used with the pronoun 'I', it indicates that the speaker feels contempt for himself. If the 'humble' MCM is used with the pronoun 'you', it shows that the speaker feels humble in the presence of the listener. If it is used with the pronoun 'I', it indicates that the speaker feels humble in his OWN presence, as if he were in awe of himself or something he just did. We can also use the register MCMs directly as roots, but we first need to define the corresponding state or action. When a register is added to speech, the user is acting in a way that is intended to have an effect on the patient. In other words, register concepts are very similar to speech acts. This becomes more obvious when we consider that the final state of the patient that the agent is attempting to achieve is simply not certain. For example, what state are we trying to achieve when we act humble, or polite, or chummy, or rude? The answer is that the state, if expressable at all, is so vague or even ambiguous that it is useless. Thus, it is best to use the register morphemes as action roots. So, when register morphemes are used as roots, the agent will be acting in a way that may affect the patient. And, as with all action verbs, the focus, if present, will simply elaborate the action. With this in mind, it seems that the best default class for these derivations is A/P-p. Here are some examples: xemnasi = to grovel before, to humble oneself before xemnano = subservient, very humble xemnadeno = august, exalted, sublime ("-de-" = middle CCM) tenkosi = to act inferior with, to be humble towards tenkono = humble/inferior tenkodeno = great, lofty, eminent, noble miosi = to be very polite to miodeno = esteemed, honored, highly regarded or respected zaisi = to be polite to, to act respectful to zaino = polite, respectful zaideno = respectable, deserving of respect caudeno = ordinary/okay/alright/cool/just like us e.g. "He's an okay guy" loisi = to be rude to, to act rude with/towards loino = rude, contemptuous loideno = stupid/stinking/cussed/damned loideda = jerk, asshole, shithead piesi = to swear obscenely at, to be profane with, to use dirty language at pieno = vulgar, obscene, filthy, profane piedeno = f*cking pievida = f*ckhead, f*cking thing Using the above scheme, some swear words are likely to be quite long. Since some people might object to using such long forms for 'dirty words', we could do exactly the opposite - create particle versions of words that are especially colloquial or rude. These would be formed exactly like other particles, and would therefore require dictionary look-up. For example, if the word for 'feces' is "dengafada", then the word for 'crap' could be "dengaka" and the word for 'shit' could be "deka". Also, the dictionary entries could simply list the reduced form along with its longer form, rather than providing a complete definition, as in the following examples: dengaka = dengafaloida deka = dengafapieda This will be especially useful for a dictionary of a language IN the same language. If you do create particle forms, the longer forms can still be used as more socially acceptable versions of otherwise forbidden words (e.g. "that crepitatious person" instead of "that f*ckhead"). Finally, the use of pejoratives is preferable to using metaphor (e.g. "pig") since pejoratives are culturally neutral and will always be understood. [I'll have more to say about the dangers of metaphor later.] 16.2 SENTENTIAL REGISTER It will also be useful to apply register to complete utterances; i.e., by having a register word modify a complete sentence. In the sample language, we will accomplish this by creating a new part-of-speech terminator, "-fo". A word that ends in "-fo" will take a complete clause or sentence as its only argument. Here are a few examples: 1. Tenkofo may I leave now? <- humble 2. Caufo I'm leaving now. <- slang 3. Loifo why did you do it? <- insulting Example (1) would have the sense of the sentence "I humbly request permission to leave now", (2) would be equivalent to "Hey, I'm splittin' now", and (3) would have the flavor of the English sentence "You louse! Why did you do it?". Similarly, the polite derivation "Zaifo" would be equivalent to the English word "please". In other words, when "-fo" terminates a word whose root is a register morpheme, the speaker is the effective agent of the register act, the listener is the effective patient, and the embedded sentence is the effective focus, since it is the elaboration of the act of humility, politeness, rudeness, etc. Note, though, that use of "-fo" is NOT the same as use of an A/P/F-p verb plus a double middle or double passive CCM, because use of the CCMs may not indicate the agent or patient of the register act. With "-fo", there is never any doubt about who the agent and patient are. 17.0 TENSE AND ASPECT _Tense_ marks the temporal location of an event as being either before, during, or after a particular reference time. The reference time is typically the moment of speech, but not always. Consider the following example: She told me that Bill had broken the window. Here, the tense of the main clause is relative to the moment of speech, while the tense of the subordinate clause is relative to the time of the main clause. Thus, while tense often resembles deictics, it is not a true deictic itself. It simply describes the temporal state of an event relative to another time, which may or may not be the moment of speech. [Cf. Our earlier discussion in the section on deictic locatives, and how a word such as "nearby" is NOT a true deictic, while a word like "here" IS a true deictic. For similar reasons, tense is a normally unfocused state concept - NOT a deictic.] Tense has three basic values: past, present, and future. However, natural languages often have additional tenses that are variations of the three basic tenses, such as 'immediate past', 'remote future', as well as different forms for relative tenses. _Aspect_ marks the temporal 'shape' of the event, and whether the event is being viewed from the 'inside' or from the 'outside'. There are two general aspects that apply to all events, and several more specific ones. Here are the two general aspects: Perfect or Perfective: The event is considered to be a single, bounded unit, viewed from the outside; i.e., the event is completed. e.g. Past: John sang the song. Present: In this report, we show that... Future: John will sing the song. Imperfect or Imperfective: The event is considered to be a range of points in time, viewed from somewhere within the range; i.e., the event is in progress. e.g. Past: John was singing the song. Present: John is singing the song. Future: John will be singing the song. [The aspectual labels that I am using here are very common in the linguistic literature, but actual labels and their definitions vary somewhat from linguist to linguist. Also, since the words "perfect" and "imperfect" have common, unrelated, non-aspectual meanings in English, I will often use their respective synonyms "perfective" and "imperfective" instead to prevent misunderstandings.] In English, the combination of present and perfect is almost never used except in formal reports and, occasionally, in colloquial narration. Semantically, the combination is not really meaningful. If it were, it would imply that an event can be viewed as both complete and ongoing at the same time, which is self-contradictory. Because of this, natural languages will often use the present perfect form for something else. English, for example, almost always uses the present perfect form to represent a present tense generic or habitual meaning (discussed below). For example, the use of "sings" in "He sings very well" means that he HABITUALLY sings very well. It does NOT mean that he is actually singing at the present moment. Consequently, if you want the aspectual system of your AL to be semantically precise, then the unmodified present perfect should probably not be used. Doing so would imply an unnatural event that is somehow both complete and ongoing at the same time. I do not know of any situation in which this would be useful. A few languages, including English, also take advantage of certain, very common verb/tense/aspect combinations to achieve greater efficiency. For example, some verbs are almost always used with a perfective meaning in the past tense and an imperfective meaning in the present tense. Some languages will take advantage of this by using the perfect form all of the time if the perfect form is less marked (i.e. 'shorter') than the imperfect form. Here are some examples: Imperfective meaning, perfective form: John knows the answer. *John is knowing the answer. The book weighs 4 pounds. *The book is weighing 4 pounds. Perfective or imperfective meaning (depending on context), perfective form: John knew the answer. *John was knowing the answer. Imperfective meaning, perfective form: The fish stinks more than I can tolerate. *The fish is stinking more than I can tolerate. Perfective or imperfective meaning (depending on context), perfective form: The hat was too big. *The hat was being too big. [Note that all the verbs in this class are non-agentive "-s" verbs derived from state roots.] Because the English imperfective form using an auxiliary plus "-ing" is longer than the perfective form, and since only one meaning is likely, the more efficient perfective form is used instead without confusion. I suspect that this kind of crossover is only likely to occur in languages whose perfective forms are more efficient than their imperfective forms. However, it is not universal. In Turkish, for example, the less efficient but semantically correct imperfective form is used for verbs like 'know'. Thus, speakers of languages that are like English in this respect will have to be careful to ALWAYS use the imperfective form for the present tense of these verbs. They should also be careful to apply the semantically appropriate aspect when using the past and future tenses of these verbs. For example, the following sentences are all SEMANTICALLY correct in their use of the verb "know", even though they are GRAMMATICALLY incorrect in English: John is not knowing the answer now, but he did know it yesterday. John is not knowing the answer now, but he will know it tomorrow. When I asked John yesterday, he was knowing the answer. When I will ask John tomorrow, he will be knowing the answer. Keep in mind that use of the imperfective indicates that we are looking at a point in time within a range of points; in other words, we are viewing the event from the inside. Use of the perfective implies that we are looking at the event as if it were bounded; in other words, we are viewing it from the outside, as if it were a single point in time (although it could be a very 'large' point). Now, consider the following: Imperfective: John was eating when Bill left. Perfective: John ate when Bill left. The first example is not bound and can potentially extend both before and after the tense time. It's even possible that John is still eating when the sentence is uttered. The second example IS bounded. John was definitely not eating before Bill left, and was definitely not eating when the sentence was uttered. In other words, a perfective event can NOT extend outside of the boundaries imposed by the tense time. An imperfective event CAN extend beyond those boundaries. There are several aspects that are more specific than the perfect or imperfect aspects. Here is a list of the most important ones: Iterative: The event is repeated more than once on a SINGLE occasion. e.g. Past perfect: John repeatedly sang the song. Past imperfect: John kept (on) singing the song. Present perfect: John repeatedly sings the song. Present imperfect: John keeps (on) singing the song. Future perfect: John will repeatedly sing the song. Future imperfect: John will keep (on) singing the song. [Note how the general aspects apply first to the verb, and the more specific aspect then modifies the result. Tense can be applied either first or last. (English speakers and speakers of other languages that require that tense be always specified will find it easier to apply tense first. Chinese speakers and speakers of languages that do not require tense marking will probably find it easier to apply tense last.) For example, before applying the iterative aspect, we first start with past imperfect "John was singing the song". The imperfect effectively 'opens up' the event and focuses on the points within it. Next, the iterative then repeats the points within a single event. For the perfective, the singing event remains closed, and the entire, bounded event is repeated. Later, we will see how to apply aspects in different orders to achieve entirely different results.] Habitual: The event is repeated more than once on DIFFERENT occasions. e.g. Past perfect: John used to sing the song. Past imperfect: John used to be singing the song. Present perfect: John sings the song (e.g. often). Present imperfect: John is writing a book (but not necessarily at this very moment) Future perfect: John will sing the song (e.g. from now on). Future imperfect: From now on, when John is singing the song... Inceptive: Only the start point of the event is under consideration. Since the inceptive represents a point in time within a range of points, the event must first be 'opened up' before the point can be referenced. Thus, an imperfective must be applied first before the inceptive can be applied. In fact, perfective followed by inceptive is semantically meaningless; cf. "*He started sang the song". e.g. Past perfect: not possible Past imperfect: John started singing the song. Present perfect: not possible Present imperfect: John starts singing the song. Future perfect: not possible Future imperfect: John will start singing the song. Continuative: A point or range of points in time somewhere in the middle of the event is under consideration. Since the continuative represents points in time within a range of points, the event must first be 'opened up' before these points can be referenced. Thus, an imperfective must be applied first before the continuative can be applied. In fact, as was the case with inceptives, a perfective followed by a continuative is semantically meaningless. e.g. Past perfect: not possible Past imperfect: John was still singing the song. Present perfect: not possible Present imperfect: John is still singing the song. Future perfect: not possible Future imperfect: John will still be singing the song. Terminative: Only the end point of the event is under consideration. Since the terminative represents a point in time within a range of points, the event must first be 'opened up' before the point can be referenced. Thus, an imperfective must be applied first before the terminative can be applied. In fact, as was the case with inceptives and continuatives, a perfective followed by a terminative is semantically meaningless. e.g. Past perfect: not possible Past imperfect: John stopped singing the song. Present perfect: not possible Present imperfect: John stops singing the song. Future perfect: not possible Future imperfect: John will stop singing the song. Completive: The event is done to completion, reaching a natural or obvious endpoint. English generally uses the verb "to finish" or an expression such as "really" or "to completion" to indicate this aspect. Sometimes, though, the particle "up" is used, as in "to eat up", "to smash up", "to fill up", etc. e.g. Past perfect: John finished washing the dishes. Past imperfect: John was finishing washing the dishes. Present perfect: In this paper, we thoroughly discuss... Present imperfect: John is finishing washing the dishes. Future perfect: John will finish washing the dishes. Future imperfect: John will be finishing washing the dishes. [Use of the English word "thoroughly" in the above example is only approximate. The English word often implies high quality or an extreme attention to detail. The completive aspect does not have this implication.] The above definitions are, I believe, the best ones possible for an AL designer because they cover those categories of aspect that appear in most natural languages. Categories that appear in very few languages, such as 'excessive duration', 'limited duration', 'frequentative', 'partial completion', etc. can be handled by using adverbs, although the AL designer is certainly free to add these and other categories to the above list. Another possibility (which I will illustrate later) is to derive the less common aspects from the major ones. In summary, tense describes the EXTERNAL temporal state of an event, while aspect describes the INTERNAL temporal state of an event. Now, in the above list, I intentionally omitted the aspect usually referred to as _generic_. Here are some examples: Squirrels live in trees. Americans produce too much garbage. Sapphires cost more than diamonds. Dogs bark when the moon is full. Many (and perhaps most) languages use the same form for both habitual and generic aspects. This is possible because the subject of a habitual is always definite while the subject of a generic is always indefinite: Generic: Dogs bark when the moon is full. Habitual: His dogs bark when the moon is full. Thus, as long as your AL allows you to make a definite/indefinite distinction without too much difficulty, you can use the same form for both habitual and generic. Besides, "genericness" is really a property of a noun - NOT of a verb. [Incidentally, English also allows a definite article to appear with an indefinite noun, which can be confusing, as in "The elephant lives in Africa". Here, the context must make it clear whether the speaker means a particular elephant or elephants in general. Fortunately, there is no need to allow this kind of construction in your AL.] 17.1 IMPLEMENTING TENSE AND ASPECT Tense seems to be morphologically or lexically linked to aspect in most natural languages, and I suggest that they be combined in an AL as well. In our sample language, I will accomplish this by allocating roots that are MNEMONICALLY compositional, just as we did for deictics. In other words, tense and aspect words will be formed from true, unique root morphemes, but we will design them in a way that will display their inherent compositionality. Here are the details: Tense Aspect ----- ------ Past: lu- Perfect: -- (default) Present: co- Imperfect: -nsa- Future: ti- Iterative: -mpo- Unspecified: ba- Habitual: -ntu- Inceptive: -spi- Continuative: -mbe- Terminative: -nzi- Completive: -ksu- Reserved: -ple- Reserved: -lto- Unspecified: -nda- Also, tense/aspect words take an entire clause as an argument, rather than just modifying the verb. Thus, they will require the terminator "-fo", which we introduced in the section on register variations. [Incidentally, note that the terminative aspect is actually equivalent to the negated continuative; i.e., an event that does not continue has stopped, and vice versa. Thus, the terminative could just as easily be formed from the continuative plus the negating morpheme "-na-". For example, "lunzifo" is actually an abbreviation for "lumbenafo".] Here are a few examples: John looked at the house. = past perfect = John lufo look at the house. John will be reading a book when I arrive. = future imperfect = John tinsafo read a book when I arrive. John is replacing the front tire. = present imperfect = John consafo replace the front tire. It is also possible to apply more than one of the more specific aspects at the same time, but the way this is implemented varies considerably from language to language. Some languages have simple and regular rules for doing so, while others must depend on context or periphrasis. English is an example of the latter. Consider the following three English sentences: 1. Kijani started singing the song 5 minutes ago. 2. Kijani started singing the song 5 years ago. 3. Kijani started singing the song 5 years ago and has never stopped, even to eat or sleep. In most circumstances, (1) would be interpreted as inceptive-imperfect. Example (2), though, would normally be interpreted as a combination of perfective, then habitual, then inceptive; i.e. inceptive-habitual-perfective (assuming Kijani is a human with normal human limitations). However, context makes it clear that (3) can only be interpreted as inceptive-imperfect, while also implying that Kijani is some kind of supernormal creature. [Note that I am using reverse order to indicate the sequence of aspects when more than one is being applied. Thus, inceptive-habitual-perfective has the nesting order inceptive(habitual(perfective(verb))). In other words, perfective is applied first to the unmarked verb, then habitual is applied to the perfective verb, and finally, inceptive is applied to the habitual- perfective verb.] When an aspect is applied to a verb or to a verb that has already been aspectually modified, there is often an assumption as to the initial aspect of what is being modified. For example, inceptive can only be applied after an imperfective. In cases such as this, there is no need to explicitly apply the imperfect aspect before applying the inceptive, since inceptive can NEVER follow a perfect aspect in a sequence. Thus, we can apply inceptive directly to the verb without first applying imperfective. For the sake of efficiency, it will be useful to define a default assumption for aspects that can apply to either perfective or imperfective. To this end, I suggest the following defaults: iterative-perfect habitual-perfect inceptive-imperfect (this is the only possibility) continuative-imperfect (this is the only possibility) terminative-imperfect (this is the only possibility) completive-perfect Thus, for example, if habitual-perfect is needed, there is no need to first mark the verb as perfective - only the habitual needs to be specified. Here are some examples that use the defaults: He keeps sneezing. = present iterative-perfect = He compofo sneeze. John started singing the song. = past inceptive-imperfect = John luspifo sing the song. John used to sing when I visited. = past habitual-perfect = John luntufo sing when I visited. Now, compare the last one above with: John used to be singing when I visited. = past habitual-imperfect = John luntufo bansafo sing when I visited. = John luntunsafo sing when I visited. [Since the default assumption for habitual is perfective, we must first apply imperfective "-nsa-" before applying habitual "-ntu-".] Note that when more than one aspect is applied to a verb using more than one word, tense is normally applied to the outermost aspect. When this occurs, the inner aspect(s) will be tenseless, as is normally the case with infinitives, participles, and other equivalent non-finite forms in natural languages. Here are some more examples that require more than one aspect: John was starting to sing the song when... = past imperfect-inceptive-imperfect = John lunsafo baspifo sing the song when... = John lunsaspifo sing the song when... [Note that since inceptive specifies a single point in time, the RESULTING aspect is perfective. By applying an imperfective to the inceptive, the start point is 'opened up' and forced to become a range of points.] John used to stop smoking as soon as I arrived. = past habitual-terminative-imperfect = John luntufo banzifo smoke as soon as I arrived. = John luntunzifo smoke as soon as I arrived. John started to (habitually) smoke when he was 15 years old. = past inceptive-habitual-perfect = John luspifo bantufo smoke when he was 15 years old. = John luspintufo smoke when he was 15 years old. 17.2 DEFAULT TENSE AND ASPECT In uninflected natural languages (e.g. Chinese, Cambodian, Indonesian), tense and aspect are usually not explicitly indicated if the intent of the speaker is clear from the context. Since our sample language is also uninflected, I suggest that we adopt a similar approach. However, I also suggest that we create a few simple rules that will make the intended tense and aspect obvious - even to a computer. Here are the rules that I feel are both natural and efficient: 1. The main verb of a sentence will be present-imperfective for "-s" verbs and past-perfective for "-d" and "-p" verbs. 2. Verbs in subordinate clauses will have the same tense as the main verb. Present tense verbs and/or "-s" verbs will be imperfective, while "-d" and "-p" verbs will be perfective. 3. If a verb is modified by a temporal or aspectual adverb or phrase, then the adverb or phrase will indicate the tense or aspect. Here are some examples for rule (1): He break the window. A/P-d main verb = He broke the window. He ask me a question. A/P/F-p main verb = He asked me a question. He know geometry. P/F-s main verb = He 'is knowing' geometry. = He knows geometry. John walk to school. AP-s main verb = John is walking to school (at this very moment). Here are some examples for rule (2): He will drive to town after she call. "to call" = A/P-p = He will drive to town after she calls. [Note that the embedded verb "calls" is actually future tense in meaning although English uses the present tense.] I did not complain when John ignore me. "to ignore" = AP/F-s = I did not complain when John was ignoring me. He knows that Mike lie. "to lie" = A/P-p = He knows that Mike is lying. He knew that Mike lie. = He knew that Mike lied. Here are some examples for rule (3): John buy a new bicycle yesterday. = John bought a new bicycle yesterday. He speak to his sister tomorrow. = He will speak to his sister tomorrow. He speak to his sister now. = He is speaking to his sister now. [The adverb "now" forces the verb to be present tense. And since present-perfect is semantically meaningless, it must be imperfective, even though the verb is "-p".] John teach math for three years. = John taught math for three years. = John 'was teaching' math for three years. [Note that "for three years" is a periphrastic way of marking the imperfect aspect.] John study math for three years. = John studied math for three years. = John 'was studying' math for three years. John sneeze three times. = John sneezed three times. [Note that "three times" implies iterative aspect.] I do not speak while John teach. = I do not speak while John is teaching. [Here, the main verb is present-habitual-imperfective. Since it is present tense, the subordinate verb must be imperfective. And even if it were not, the case marker "while" would force an imperfective interpretation of "teach", as in the next example...] I did not speak while John teach. = I did not speak while John was teaching. [Here, only the case marker "while" forces "teach" to be imperfective.] In the last example, if we had used an aspectless case marker, such as "when", then "teach" would have to be explicitly marked as imperfective to get the 'was teaching' interpretation. Otherwise, the default interpretation would imply that the speaking and teaching events were points in time that completely overlapped each other; i.e. "I did not speak at the same time that John taught" or "I was not speaking at the same time that John was teaching". Other temporal case markers, such as "after" and "before", imply a single cut- off point in time, and these, by default, will force a subordinate verb to be perfective. 17.3 FURTHER DERIVATION USING TENSE/ASPECT ROOTS The tense/aspect roots represent many useful concepts, and can undergo further derivation to produce many useful words. We can accomplish this by suffixing appropriate classifiers, CCMs, and MCMs. Before we can proceed, though, we need to define the semantics of the conversion process. In other words, since we will be using a tense/aspect root as a state root, we need to define the meaning of the resulting state. Here are the meanings that I feel are most productive: 1. If a root contains tense information, the corresponding state will represent a point or range of points on the time line. 2. If a root contains aspectual information, the corresponding state will represent a point in time (perfective), a range of points in time (imperfective), a repeated set of points in time (iterative), the starting point of a range of points in time (inceptive), etc. 3. The patient of a derivation is the entity or event that experiences the temporal/aspectual state. 4. If a derivation is focused, then the focus is a referent event. In other words, the patient experiences the temporal/aspectual state relative to the focal event. Thus, the patient can be either an entity OR an event. The focus, however, MUST be an event - it can never be an entity (unless, of course, the focal "entity" implies or is somehow associated with an actual event or time). In summary, the language designer can avoid mistakes in applying temporal and aspectual states by always conceptualizing them as points on the time line. Finally, since all tense/aspect words are inherently relational, the default class will be P/F-s. With the above in mind, we can now create the following useful words: -tinda- (future, unspecified aspect): tindasi - P/F-s verb = 'to be in the future relative to the focus' 'to occur after', 'to post-date' e.g. The accident tindasi the party. = The accident occurred after the party. [Note that a "-d" version of this verb is not very useful. It would mean something like 'to arrive at or enter a time in the future relative to the focus'. For example, using the "-d" version, the above sentence would mean 'The accident took place while arriving at a time after the party'. This would imply that the accident started during or even before the party. In other words, the accident moved along the time line from a point in time NOT after the party to a point in time AFTER the party.] tindape - P/F-s case tag = 'after' e.g. He left tindape I did. = He left after I did. tindano - P/F-s adjective = 'subsequent', 'following' [The open adjective form "tindabie" has the meaning 'subsequent to'.] tindaseno - P-s adjective = 'future', '-to-be' e.g. I just saw the tindaseno bride. = I just saw the bride-to-be [Note the difference in meaning between the P-s and the P/F-s forms.] tindasepe - P-s adverb = 'later', 'afterwards', 'someday', 'sometime in the future' e.g. I wash the dishes tindasepe. = I'll wash the dishes later. [Note that there is no need to mark the verb "wash" for future tense, since the future meaning is present in the adverb.] tindaseda - P-s noun = 'a future event', 'something which happens in the future' tindabeda - time noun = 'future time', 'the future' These should look familiar. In the section on temporal case tags, we used the root "lunda-" to represent the temporal relationship meaning 'before'. This root, as we can now see, is simply the tense/aspect root representing past tense with unspecified aspect. [Unspecified aspect is used because the actual aspect has already been provided by the main verb. To provide it again in the case tag would be redundant.] Similarly, the root "conda-" (present tense, unspecified aspect) can be used to create the P/F-s temporal case tag "condape" meaning temporal 'at', 'when', or 'at the time of'. Thus, there is no need to randomly allocate state roots to perform temporal functions. In fact, if we should ever discover that we are unable to "derive" an essential temporal case tag using the above approach, then it will imply that our tense/aspect system is incomplete. If this should occur, then an appropriate new entry should be added to the tense/aspect table. Now, let's create some more useful words: -lu- (past, unspecified aspect): lugada - P-s [+F] noun = 'precursor/forerunner' lugagiu - P-s [+F] open noun = 'precursor of/forerunner to' e.g. The telegraph was the lugagiu all modern communications. = The telegraph was the precursor of all modern communications. -baspi- (tenseless inceptive): baspisi - P/F-s verb = 'to be at the start/beginning point of (an event)' e.g. John baspisi a new adventure. = John is at the start of a new adventure. baspisuasi - AP/F-d verb = 'to cause oneself to enter the start/beginning point of an event', 'to start', 'to begin' e.g. John baspisuasi his homework. = John started his homework. The P-d verb "baspipiasi" also means 'to start/begin' but would be used when there is no agency, as in "The rain started at 3 PM". Thus, it's closer to the English word "commence". From "-baspi-", we can also derive the following: P-s adjective: baspiseno = 'initial' P-s adverb: baspisepe = 'initially', 'at the start', 'in the beginning' Now, here are some additional useful derivations: -bambe- (tenseless continuative): bambesi - P/F-s verb = 'to be at some point between start and end', 'to be during', 'to take place during' e.g. The aria bambesi the castle scene. = The aria takes place during the castle scene. bambepe - P/F-s case tag = 'during' e.g. John called his brother bambepe his lunch break. = John called his brother during his lunch break. bambesesi - P-s verb = 'to be still going on' e.g. The celebration bambesesi. = The celebration is still going on. bambelape - "0" adverb = 'in the meantime', 'meanwhile' bambenalape - "0" adverb = 'no longer', 'not any more' bambefisi - AP/F-s verb = 'to maintain oneself at some point between start and end', 'to be still doing', 'to be still at' e.g. John bambefisi his homework. = John is still doing his homework. bambesuasi - AP/F-d verb = 'to cause oneself to enter at some point between start and end', 'to continue doing', 'to go back to (doing)' e.g. John bambesuasi his homework. = John went back to/continued doing his homework. Here, the "-s"/"-d" distinction is definitely a useful one. The AP/F-s verb is equivalent to the English phrase "to be still doing". The AP/F-d verb, however, implies that the event continued after some kind of pause or stoppage. In effect, it means 'to re-enter the event', which is the way the English verb "to continue" is most commonly used. The terminative is also very useful: -banzi- (tenseless terminative): banzipusi - A/P-d = 'to stop', 'to bring to a halt' e.g. The police banzipusi the parade. = The police halted the parade. banzipiasi - P-d = 'to stop', 'to come to a stop' e.g. The rain banzipiasi. = The rain stopped. banzisuasi - AP/F-d = 'to exit an event', 'to stop doing' e.g. John banzisuasi his homework. = John stopped doing his homework. The P/F-s derivation would mean something like 'to be at the end of (an event)'. Now, let's speed things up and derive a large number of useful words. To save time, I'll just list the results (with an occasional comment here and there) and leave the details to the interested reader: -banda- (tenseless, unspecified aspect): P-s verb: bandasesi = 'to exist in time', 'to occur', 'to happen', 'to take place' -consa- (present tense, imperfective): P-s adjective: consaseno = 'in progress', 'happening', 'currently ongoing' P-d adjective: consapiano = 'unfolding' (as in "the unfolding story") -bansa- (tenseless, imperfective): P-s adjective: bansaseno = 'ongoing', 'having duration' P-s verb: bansasesi = 'to take time', 'to go on' It's important to note that we cannot derive a word meaning 'duration' from a tense/aspect root. The tense/aspect roots indicate the temporal 'location' and the temporal 'shape' of an event, but not the actual length of the event. Thus, a word with the meaning 'duration' must be derived from a measure verb, which we discussed earlier. For the same reasons, a word meaning 'to last' or 'to take', as in "The job took three hours" must be derived from the same measure word. Now, let's continue with some more useful derivations: -bampo- (tenseless, iterative): A/P-s verb: bampozoyasi = 'to iterate', 'to do (something) repeatedly' P-s adverb: bamposepe = 'repeatedly', 'over and over' P-s process: bamposepada = 'iteration/repetition' [Do not confuse aspectual iteration with numeric repetition (which uses specific numeric morphemes). Aspectual iteration implies a single event with several sub-events. Repetition implies two or more distinct events. Thus, the verb meaning 'to repeat' is simply "zefigefesi", which literally means 'to do one more time' or 'to re-do'.] -bantu- (tenseless, habitual): P-s adjective: bantuseno = 'habitual', 'regular' P-s adverb: bantusepe = 'habitually', 'regularly' P-s process: bantusepada = 'habit', 'wont', 'custom' -baksu- (tenseless, completive): AP/F-d verb: baksusuasi = 'to complete', 'to finish' AP/F-d process: baksusuapada = 'completion' AP/F-d result: baksusuamanteda = 'final result' P-s adjective: baksuseno = 'complete' P-s adverb: baksusepe = 'completely', 'to completion' Languages also need to be able to express degrees of nearness and remoteness in time. For this purpose, I suggest that we again use the scalar polarity MCMs. Here they are again for easy reference: -pi- 'maximally', 'extremely' -ge- 'very', 'highly' -so- 'not too', 'not very' -ju- 'minimally', 'barely', 'hardly' The CCM "-na-" meaning 'not' will also be useful. Here are some useful derivations: banzisepe = 'at the end', 'finally' (tenseless terminative) banzipisepe = 'at the very end', 'right at the end' banzigesepe = 'near the end' banzisosepe = 'well before the end' banzijusepe = 'way, way before the end' tindasepe = 'later', 'afterwards' (future, unspecified aspect) tindapisepe = 'in the remote future' tindagesepe = 'in the distant future' tindasosepe = 'soon', 'in the near future' tindajusepe = 'immediately' tindanasepe = 'at the same time or earlier' lundasepe = 'earlier', 'in the past', 'already' (past, unspecified aspect) lundapisepe = 'in the remote past' lundagesepe = 'in the distant past', 'a long time ago' lundasosepe = 'recently', 'in the recent past' lundajusepe = 'just' lundanasepe = 'at the same time or later' baksusepe = 'completely', 'thoroughly', 'to completion' (tenseless, completive) baksupisepe = 'really thorough', 'absolutely to completion' baksugesepe = 'almost', 'come close to', 'not quite' baksusosepe = 'hardly at all', 'barely at all' baksujusepe = 'not at all' baksunasepe = 'incompletely' The above examples are all adverbs, but other versions, especially the adjectives and nouns, will also be useful. Actually, though, the adverbs will probably not get much use, since the MCMs can be applied directly to the tense/ aspect words. We can also apply the numeric MCMs meaning 'always', 'often', etc. Here are some examples: lunzifo = past terminative lunzijufo = 'just stopped' e.g. "He lunzijufo run" = "He just stopped running" lufo = past perfective lujufo = 'just' e.g. "He lujufo arrive" = "He just arrived" tifo = future perfective tijufo = 'to be about to' e.g. "He tijufo leave" = "He's about to leave" baksufo = tenseless completive baksugefo = 'almost' e.g. "He baksugefo fail" = "He almost failed" lunsafo = past imperfective lunsasaksifo = 'was always ...ing' e.g. "He lunsasaksifo leave early" = "He was always leaving early" And so on. Note that we can also use polarity MCMs for LOCATIVE concepts. For example, the case case tag "mepe", meaning 'at/in', can undergo further derivation to produce "mepipe" = 'right at', "megepe" = 'almost at/near', "mesope" = 'not very close to', and "mejupe" = 'not at all close to'. The negative form "menape" meaning 'not at' or 'away from' can undergo further derivation to produce "menapipe" = 'very far from', "menagepe" = 'far from', "menasope" = 'not too far from', and "menajupe" = 'not far at all from'. Finally, when "-fo" is applied to a tense/aspect root, it is very similar to the combination "ma" + "xi" + "si", where "-ma-" is the P/F-s verb classifier and "-xi-" is the anti-middle CCM. The result is a P-s [-F] verb, which takes an embedded sentence as its only argument. For example, "John tifo leave" meaning 'John will leave' is very similar to "Timaxisi John leave" meaning 'At some time in the future relative to an unspecified focus, John will leave'. However, in main clauses, where tense is normally deictic, the unspecified focus is normally the time of the utterance. When using "-maxisi", the unspecified focus does not necessarily have to be the time of the utterance. Note how this strong deictic effect is also present when we use "-fo" with register morphemes. For register acts, however, the focus is the embedded sentence. The deictic elements are the agent, who is always the speaker, and the patient, who is always the listener. 18.0 MODALITY Whenever we speak, we always provide some indication of our commitment or attitude towards what we are saying. These attitudes are always subjective and range in concept from certainty to uncertainty, from insistence to prohibition, from encouraging to warning, and so on. This subjective judgement of a speaker towards what he is saying is called the _modality_ of an utterance, and can vary in kind as well as in degree. Here are some English examples: You must go now. -> 100% obligation You should go now. -> high obligation You need to go now. -> high necessity He left. -> 100% probability He may have left. -> undefined probability He might have left. -> low probability He did not leave. -> zero probability Did he leave? -> interrogative probability He should be there. -> high probability Does it matter that he won? -> interrogative importance It seems the storm is over. -> high evidentiality [Evidentiality indicates the speaker's judgement about how reliable the information is.] As you can see from the above examples, there is very little regularity in the English modal system, and this is typical of perhaps all natural languages. Modal systems evolve slowly over time and can be quite idiosyncratic. In a single language, some modals may take the form of inflections, some may use auxiliaries, while some may use verbs, adverbs, or other open class words. In this respect English is typical. Unfortunately, different languages implement modal concepts in different ways, and a particular modal may be used for more than one type of modality or may cover different degrees. For example, the English modal "should" can express either probability, obligation, or evidentiality. There may also be different ways of expressing the same type and degree of modality. For example, the English expressions "should" and "ought to" are essentially synonymous, as are "must/have to", "does it matter/is it important", and so on. Finally, modalities often overlap in meaning. For example, both "must" and "have to" can imply either 'obligation', 'necessity', 'probability', or 'evidentiality'. In fact, the modal systems of natural languages vary SO much and are SO idiosyncratic, that a truly neutral and regular system is unlikely to resemble the system of ANY natural language. Fortunately, the semantics of modality is highly regular, and CAN be categorized. 18.1 MODAL CONCEPTS The most basic modal concept is 'probability'. It is the most basic because it provides us with the most common sentential types: positive statements, negative statements, and interrogative statements. And, as we will see later, it is also often used in conjunction with other types of modality. Here is a breakdown of the probability modality: probability: He left yesterday. 100% probable He must have left yesterday. high He may have left yesterday. undefined He might have left yesterday. low He did not leave yesterday. 0% Did he leave yesterday? interrogative The 100% probability modality is normally referred to as the _indicative_, the 0% probability modality is referred to as the _negative_. Also, the 100% probability modality is normally unmarked. When it is explicitly marked, it is called the _emphatic_. (Cf. "He left yesterday" vs. "He did leave yesterday" or "He definitely left yesterday".) There are also several other modalities. However, in most natural languages, these modalities generally only have unique modal forms for the 100% or high degree, if at all. Other degrees of modality are generally obtained by use of adverbs, normal verbs, disjuncts, and other kinds of periphrasis. Here is a listing of a few of the other modalities, illustrating the 100% and the high degrees of each one in English: obligation: He must go now. 100% He should (= ought to) go now. high necessity: It is essential that he go now. 100% He needs to go now. high evidentiality: It's obvious that he left. 100% He seems to have left. high inevitability: He must be there by now. 100% He's bound to be there by now. high The other degrees of modality (and occasionally the 100% and high degrees, as well) are often quite idiosyncratic, and may require adverbs, normal verbs, and unusual language-specific forms of prodody and/or periphrasis. Some linguists consider certain feelings about an event to be modal in nature. Here are some examples: fear: I fear that he left. gladness: I'm glad that our team won. sorrow: It's sad that he flunked the course. curiosity: It's curious that he left so early. However, these are not true modals because the embedded event CAUSES the state of the speaker. For a true modal, the speaker is judging a situation and must be the source of the judgement. Besides, these feelings are inherently mental, and represent the state of the speaker himself. They do NOT represent the speaker's judgement of an event. Thus, they should be derived from basic state verbs. [Note though, that while the English word "curious" proto- typically represents a mental state, the related word "odd" is a true modal.] Some people may also be tempted to include other attitudes, such as disgust, fondness, hatred, suspicion, etc. among the modals. However, these again do not indicate the speaker's judgement about what he is saying. In fact, they represent the speaker's feelings towards the listener or a third party. Since all modalities express the speaker's judgement towards what he is saying, all modalities are, in effect, a kind of speech act, and it should not be surprising that modalities that do not have formal expression in a particular language are often implemented using speech act verbs (e.g. the English hortative "to urge"). In fact, all true modals can be paraphrased as something like "I say that there is X degree of modality Y that Z". For example, the sentence "You need to find a job" can be paraphrased as "I say that there is a high degree of necessity that you find a job". And like all speech acts, the 'agent' (i.e. the speaker) attempts to cause a change of state in the 'patient' (i.e. the listener), either by affecting the behavior of the patient or by imparting information to the patient. In other words, the speech act either tries to convince the listener to do or to not do something, or it tries to get the listener to accept, question, reject, or supply information. It's important to keep this in mind if you should ever feel that other concepts may be inherently modal in nature. [Later, we'll discuss a rigorous and comprehensive test for modal concepts.] 18.2 THE SEMANTICS OF MODALITY All modalities belong to one of two categories: 1. Epistemic: a judgement about a real situation (e.g. "John may have gone away.") 2. Deontic: a judgement about a potential or hypothetical situation (e.g. "John should go away.") In additon, there is special type of deontic modality that includes an imperative from the speaker that the hypothetical situation should or should not be brought about. We will refer to this special modality as "speaker- oriented". The best example is a simple command, such as "Go away!". As we saw above with epistemic probability, each modal concept can take on a range of values. Here are complete examples for epistemic probability, deontic obligation, and speaker-oriented obligation: Epistemic probability: 100%: John left. high: John must have left. low: John might have left. very low: John just might have left. 0%: John did not leave. undefined: John may have left. interrogative: Did John leave? Deontic obligation: 100%: John must leave. high: John should leave. low: John should not leave. very low: John really shouldn't leave. 0%: John must not leave. undefined: John can/may leave. interrogative: Should John leave? Speaker-oriented obligation: 100%: Leave! or You must leave! high: I'd leave if I were you. low: I wouldn't leave if I were you. 0%: Don't leave! or You must not leave! undefined: You can/may leave. The 100% deontic obligation modality is sometimes called the _obligative_, and the 100% speaker-oriented obligation modality is called either the _imperative_ or the _hortative_. The 0% speaker-oriented modality is often called the _prohibitive_. The undefined deontic and speaker-oriented modals are closest to what linguists call the _permissive_, since they provide an option. The 100% and high versions of deontic modalities imply that the hypothetical event can, should, or will occur. The low and 0% versions imply that the event can not, should not, or will not occur. Thus, 0% speaker-oriented obligation modalities are equivalent to forbidding something or demanding that something NOT be done. This is a very important distinction and should always be kept in mind. The degree applied to an epistemic modality is the degree of the modality itself. The degree applied to a deontic modality indicates the degree to which the hypothetical event is eventually realized; i.e., the degree of EPISTEMIC PROBABILITY that can, should, or will apply to the hypothetical event. We'll see many examples of this later. Using the same logic, the undefined deontic is used to indicate that change is optional, and the interrogative deontic is used to ask if change is desirable. There are several other modalities. Here's another epistemic one: Epistemic evidentiality: 100%: It's obvious/clear/evident that John left. high: John seems to have left. low: There's little reason to believe that John left. or John couldn't have left. very low: There's almost no reason to believe that John left. 0%: There's no reason to believe that John left. or John couldn't possibly have left. undefined: There may or may not be reason to believe that John left. interrogative: Is there reason to believe that John left? or Could John have left? Thus, evidentiality indicates what APPEARS to be true - not what actually IS true. In effect, it simply comments on how reliable the speaker feels the information is. Some languages provide even greater detail, such as whether the speaker saw the event with his own eyes or heard it with his own ears. However, these more specific modalities are relatively rare. Here's another example of a deontic modality: Deontic inevitability: 100%: He can't help being there by now. or He WILL be there by now. high: He's bound to be there by now. low: It's hard to imagine him being there by now. very low: I just can't imagine him being there by now. 0%: He can't possibly be there by now. undefined: He could be there by now, but who knows? (The implication is that he's unpredictable.) interrogative: Is it possible that he's already there? (Here, "possible" has a sense closer to "predictable".) 100% inevitability is unlike 100% obligation, since it implies that something WILL happen in spite of any attempts to stop it. Here are a few other modalities: Epistemic adequacy/sufficiency: What he's doing is adequate/sufficient/satisfactory. Deontic necessity: He needs to take care of them. Epistemic significance: Does it matter that John won? Yes, it matters. It's significant that he left early. Deontic importance: He'd better keep his commitment. It's important for him to keep his commitment. He'd better not leave early. [This modality implies that a situation will have important consequences. High degrees imply positive consequences, while low degrees imply negative consequences.] Note that only deontic obligation has a speaker-oriented version. Later, we'll discuss other potential modalities. We'll also discuss how to test new concepts to determine if they are inherently modal in nature. 18.3 IMPLEMENTING MODALITY So, how should we implement modality in a way that captures its inherent regularity, while avoiding the ubiquitous variability and idiosyncracy of natural languages? There are three characteristics of modality that we need to represent: 1. The modal concept (e.g. probability, evidentiality, etc.) 2. The degree of modality (e.g. 100%, high, interrogative, etc.) 3. The type of modality (i.e. epistemic, deontic, or speaker-oriented) However, there is no need to indicate whether the type of a modal is epistemic or deontic, because the type is an inherent part of the modal concept. [If there were some way to derive one from the other, then we WOULD want to mark the type. However, I have not been able to do this, even though I spent a considerable amount of time trying. For example, what is the deontic counterpart of epistemic necessity? What is the epistemic counterpart of deontic obligation? Although I did once think that there was a correlation, I was never able to state the correlation with semantic precision, and so I abandoned the idea. I'll have more to say about this later.] So, in order to implement modality in the sample language, I will allocate a set of MNEMONICALLY compositional roots, just as I did for deictics and tense/ aspect roots. In other words, modal words will be formed from true, unique root morphemes, but we will design them in a way that will display their inherent compositionality. Here are the details: Degree Modality ------------------------------------------------------------------- 100% pi- Probability (epistemic) -nte- High ge- Evidentiality (epistemic) -sna- Low so- Adequacy (epistemic) -ngo- Very low ju- Significance (epistemic) -mbe- 0% na- Obligation (deontic) -ndu- Undefined xe- Inevitability (deontic) -sko- Interrogative ku- Necessity (deontic) -tsi- Importance (deontic) -spu- Speaker-oriented obligation: -nka- Note that only obligation has speaker-oriented morphemes. They will be used to derive all basic imperatives. Note also that the degree markers are intentionally chosen for their mnemonic value, since they are identical to the scalar polarity morphemes "-pi-", "-ge-", and so on. However, keep in mind that the modal degree markers are not true morphemes, but are only PART of complete morphemes. For example, the "pi" in "pinte" is not a true morpheme - it is simply the first syllable of the morpheme "pinte". Finally, since a modal takes an entire clause as an argument, we will use the terminator "-fo" to indicate the part-of-speech, just as we did for sentential register and tense/aspect words. Now, in all natural languages that I am familiar with, the indicative is the default and is unmarked. Thus, it might seem that the 100% epistemic probability marker "pintefo" is not really needed. However, a language must have a way of emphasizing the truth of a statement, and "pintefo" is the obvious and natural choice for this function. (Cf. "He went to the house" vs. "He DID go to the house" or "He definitely went to the house".) Here are some examples using English word order: Louise DID buy it. = Louise pintefo buy it. Louise didn't buy it. = Louise nantefo buy it. Did Louise buy it? = Kuntefo Louise buy it? Louise must have bought it. = Louise gentefo buy it. Louise may have bought it. = Louise xentefo buy it. Louise just may have bought it. = Louise sontefo buy it. She has to leave now. = She pindufo leave now. She should leave now. = She gendufo leave now. He needs to study harder. = He getsifo study harder. He's bound to cause trouble. = He geskofo cause trouble. He seems to have left. = He gesnafo leave. He'd better leave now. = He pispufo leave now. Now, let's see what happens when we apply two or more modals to the same sentence. Consider the following: Does she need to leave now? ? Kutsifo she leave now? (kutsifo = interrogative necessity, ? Kuntefo getsifo she leave now? kuntefo = interrogative probability, ? Getsifo kuntefo she leave now? getsifo = high necessity) The third example doesn't really make any sense ("It is necessary that 'is it true that she is leaving now?'"). The second example seems to have the desired meaning ("Is it true that she needs to leave now?"). But how do we interpret the first example? We might be tempted to paraphrase an interrogative degree of modality as "What is the degree of modality Y?". However, this is incorrect. When we ask a question, we are not asking for a probability - we are asking for a response that CONTAINS a probability. For example, if I ask "Is John home?", I am hoping for a statement such as "No, he isn't". I would be very surprised with an answer such as "0% probability". In other words, a typical valid answer would be one of the NON-interrogative probabilities. The same reasoning applies to the other modalities. When we use a modality of interrogative degree, we are asking a question that can best be answered by an answer that contains a non-interrogative modality of the same type. Thus, when I ask a question using "kuntefo", I am hoping for an answer that contains either "pintefo", "gentefo", "sontefo", "nantefo", or "xentefo". Now, let's look again at the first and second examples: Does she need to leave now? ? Kutsifo she leave now? (kutsifo = interrogative necessity, ? Kuntefo getsifo she leave now? kuntefo = interrogative probability, getsifo = high necessity) The second example is actually asking "Does she have a high need to leave now?". This is not quite the same as asking "Does she need to leave now?" A good paraphrase would be "Does she REALLY need to leave now?". Thus, a possible answer to the second example could be something like "No, she doesn't NEED to leave, but she probably should anyway". The first example, however, is completely general, and is thus closest in meaning to the English sentence "Does she need to leave now?". A good paraphrase of the first example would be "Is there a need for her to leave now?". In other words, a question using an interrogative modal is actually more general than combining the interrogative probability marker "kuntefo" with a specific marker of the desired modality. When "kuntefo" is followed by another modal, we are really asking if that SPECIFIC degree of modality applies. It is important to keep this in mind when designing and describing the modality system of an AL. 18.4 MORE ON SPEAKER-ORIENTED PROBABILITY Speaker-oriented obligation is like deontic obligation in that it indicates that something should be done. However, it goes beyond deontic obligation by actually urging the listener to do something. Thus, a good English paraphrase of 100% speaker-oriented obligation would be something like "See to to that..." or "Make sure that...". Here's a complete list: 100% pinkafo See to it that... Make sure that... high genkafo You should see to it that... You should make sure that... low sonkafo You should not let... very low junkafo You really shouldn't let... 0% nankafo Don't let... Undefined xenkafo You might want to have ... Interrogative kunkafo Should you have... ? Note that the above interpretations allow a complete sentence as an argument, and can thus demand action from a third party. For example, the sentence: "Pinkafo Billy go to bed now" <- 100% speaker-oriented probability could mean any of the following: See to it that Billy goes to bed now. Have Billy go to bed now. Make sure that Billy goes to bed now. In addition to the above, all languages seem to have a much more narrowly defined 100% imperative which is very abrupt and which applies directly and only to the listener. For example, the English command "Open the door!" is a more abrupt version of "See to it that you open the door". Since this more abrupt imperative is both useful and (apparently) universal, we will also implement it in the sample language. Specifically, the special part- of-speech terminator "-cu" will be a short form for the normal verb terminator "-si" plus the 2nd person deictic "dustuda" meaning 'you' as the implied subject. The following examples show how "-cu" is used: Pinkafo dustuda teyokosi her to swim = See to it that you teach her to swim. Teyokocu her to swim! = Teach her to swim! Note that a true imperative is always directed at the listener, even if the speaker is demanding action by a third party. It is the listener that is being given responsibility for the action. Finally, some languages that have a distinct morphology for imperatives can also apply them directly to first and third persons. The ones that I am familiar with generally have the meaning 'let ...' as in "Let them leave if they really want to". However, these are not true imperatives. They are either permissives (i.e. undefined deontic obligation "xendufo"), verbs meaning 'permit/allow' (derived in the next section), or disjuncts expressing a sense of frustration or resignation. (We discussed disjuncts earlier in the section on grammatical voice, and will have even more to say about them later in the section on conjunctions.) 18.5 FURTHER DERIVATION USING MODAL ROOTS As was the case with tense/aspect roots, modal roots can be used to derive many additional words. Before we can start, though, we need to define the equivalent 'state' of a modal. In other words, what is the basic or raw state that is associated with a modal? As I mentioned earlier, all of the modal derivations are essentially speech acts, since the speaker tries to induce a change of state in the listener using speech. However, unlike a true speech act, a modal ALWAYS describes the speaker's judgement of a situation that may be completely unrelated to the speech act itself. In other words, a modal is a combination of a speech act, an additional situation, plus the speaker's judgement of the additional situation. Thus, a modal concept is much more complex than most basic states, and this overly complex concept will not be useful if it undergoes further derivation. Fortunately, the most useful component of a modality is how the speaker judges the situation. If we can isolate this attitude, it will provide us with a simpler concept that we can then use very productively in further derivations. Thus, we need a strategy that will eliminate the speaker's contribution such that only the basic modality remains. To that end, I suggest that we paraphrase the modal in such a way that it eliminates the 'speech act' component and isolates the modal concept. We can do this by using each modal in a test sentence and paraphrasing it in the form "it is X that ...", where X is the modal concept. Here are several examples: Epistemic probability: 100%: He took care of the children. It is true that he took care of them. high: He must have taken care of them. It is probable/likely that he took care of them. low: He just may have taken care of them. It is unlikely/improbable that he took care of them. very low: He almost certainly did not take care of them. It's implausible/hardly possible that he took care of them. 0% He did not take care of them. It is false/impossible that he took care of them. undefined: He may have taken care of them. It is possible that he took care of them. Deontic obligation: 100%: He must take care of them. It is mandatory/obligatory that he take care of them. high: He should take care of them. It is desirable that he take care of them. low: He should not take care of them. It is undesirable that he take care of them. 0%: He must not take care of them. It is forbidden/prohibited that he take care of them. undefined: He can/may take care of them. It is optional that he take care of them. Epistemic evidentiality: 100%: It's obvious/evident/apparent that he took care of them. (same) high: It seems/appears that he took care of them. It is highly apparent that he took care of them. Deontic inevitability: 100%: He can't help taking care of them. It is inevitable/fated/preordained that he take care of them. High: He's bound to take care of them. It is 'meant to be' that he take care of them. Epistemic sufficiency: 100%: It's sufficient/adequate that he took care of them. (same) 0%: It's insufficient/inadequate that he took care of them. (same) Deontic necessity: 100%: It's essential that he take care of them. (same) high: He needs to take care of them. It is necessary that he take care of them. Epistemic significance: 100%: It's highly significant/momentous that he left early. (same) high: It matters that he left early. It is significant that he left early. Deontic importance: 100%: He'd better leave early. It is essential that he leave early. high: It is essential/important that he leave early. (same) [Incidentally, I am very reluctant to use passive glosses like "forbidden", "pre-ordained", "desirable", and so on, since they implicitly involve agents or patients and are not true abstract concepts. Unfortunately, I have not been able to think of better glosses, and English may not HAVE any. When an appropriate word is not available, natural languages often extend the meaning of existing words using polysemy or metaphor.] Note that none of the above are true states. If they were, they would describe the states of ENTITIES. Instead, they describe the mental judgement of the speaker about a SITUATION. Thus, the situation is actually the focus of the speaker's mental state. For example, if a situation is 'obvious', then the speaker FEELS that it is obvious. If a situation is 'adequate' then the speaker FEELS that it is adequate. And so on. In other words, the true states can be best captured in the form of P/F-s verbs, since they indicate a relationship between a patient/entity and a focus/situation. The raw concepts themselves (i.e. 'true', 'obvious', 'adequate', etc.) can be represented by the F-s [-P] middle voice forms (CCM "-de-"). Note also that all of the epistemic paraphrases use the past tense, while all of the deontic paraphrases use an implicit future tense. I discovered that using this convention is less likely to result in confusion (at least when the paraphrases are in English). Now, in order to convert the modal concept to a state, we must add a patient. And since modal concepts represent judgements, opinions, and attitudes, modal states will always be mental states. Thus, we can best capture the mental state by using a P/F-s state verb of the form "Patient feels/thinks that focus". Here are some epistemic examples: probability: I feel that F is true = I believe F I feel that F is unlikely/improbable = I doubt F evidentiality: I feel that F is obvious = I am sure/positive that F sufficiency: I feel that F is adequate = I am satisfied with/that F Note that each modal concept has now become an actual mental state of a patient. Now, let's see if we can do the same thing with a few deontic modalities: obligation: I feel that something is mandatory = I ??? necessity: I feel that something is necessary = I ??? inevitability: I feel that something is inevitable = I ??? What's wrong? It seems that deontic modalities do not really describe the state of the speaker. Instead, the speaker is actually describing the state of someone or something else. Thus, it's necessary to paraphrase deontic derivations in terms of the other entity, as follows: obligation: Something is mandatory to the patient = The patient is obligated to... necessity: Something is necessary to the patient = The patient needs/has a need for... inevitability: Something is inevitable for the patient = The patient is fated/destined to... Thus, for epistemic modalities, we must paraphrase the state as the equivalent state of the speaker. For deontic modalities, we must paraphrase the state as the equivalent state of the entity that the speaker is talking about. Also, it's essential to keep in mind that the degree of an epistemic modality is the degree of the modality itself. However, the degree of a deontic modality indicates the likelihood of the hypothetical event. For example, 0% probability means that the probability is 0%. However, 0% obligation does NOT mean that there is no obligation. Instead, it means that the event must not occur; i.e., that there is an obligation to see that the event does not occur. Thus, 0% obligation is equivalent to prohibition. If we need to specify that there is a deontic option, we use the undefined degree. Finally, speaker-oriented obligation is simply an imperative version of deontic obligation. Thus, it can be used to implement verbs that are inherently imperative (or prohibitive) in nature. I'll provide examples of these below. Now, with all of the above in mind, let's create several useful words from modal roots. For all modal roots, the default class will be P/F-s. Here are some of the many possible derivations from the epistemic probability modality: 100% epistemic probability, "-pinte-": P/F-s pintesi = to believe, to accept as true/correct/right pintenuda = belief, something believed to be true ("-nu-" = passive CCM) pintepada = faith ("-pa-" = process CCM) pintedesi = to be true/correct/right ("-de-" = middle CCM) pintedeno = true/correct/right pintededa = the truth, what is true Pintevoisi = yes, that's correct/right, it's true, etc. (used in answer to a question, "-voi-" = double middle CCM) [English speakers should be careful not to extend the meaning of these derivations to people. For example, in the sentence "You are correct", the speaker really means 'What you are saying is correct'. Thus, it's acceptable to say "THAT is correct", but not "YOU are correct". In other words, 'truth' or 'correctness' applies to a situation - NOT to a person.] P/F-d pintedosi = to swallow, to fall for P-s pinteseno = credulous AP/F-s pintefisi = tp presume/assume, to be certain/sure that pintefinesi = to agree that F ("-ne-" = cosubject CCM) pintefisi F nepe X = to agree with X that/about F AP/F-d pintesuasi = to decide, to conclude A/P/F-p pinteniosi = to impart, to convey, to make known, to disclose A/P/F-d pintekosi = to convince, to show, to demonstrate, to make clear [Note that the AP/F version implies an intentional belief; i.e. that the believer "takes" something to be true rather than "thinks/feels" something to be true.] high epistemic probability, "-gente-": P/F-s gentesi = to suspect, to feel that, to accept as likely/probable, to be of the opinion that, to think that gentedeno = likely/probable gentemanteda = opinion/feeling ("-mante" = process result or product CCM) gentevoisi = probably, in all likelyhood (in answer to a question) AP/F-s gentefisi = to guess, to hypothesize low epistemic probability, "-sonte-": P/F-s sontesi = to be doubtful, to accept as unlikely/ improbable sonteno = doubting/doubtful (i.e. a person) sontedeno = unlikely/improbable sontevoisi = probably not, not likely (in answer to a question) AP/F-s sontefisi = to be skeptical about, to consider unlikely/improbable sontefino = skeptical sontefideno = dubious/doubtful (i.e. a fact) 0% epistemic probability, "-nante-": P/F-s nantesi = to accept as false nantedeno = false/incorrect/wrong nantededa = mistake, something wrong or incorrect Nantevoisi = no, that's wrong/incorrect, it's not true (used in answer to a question) AP/F-s nantefisi = to disbelieve, to reject nantesausi = to disagree that F ("-sau-" = non-subject CCM) nantefisi F saupe X = to disagree with X that F undefined epistemic probability, "-xente-": P/F-s xentesi = to daresay, to accept as possible xentedeno = possible xenteveda = possibility ("-ve-" = quality CCM) xentevoisi = maybe/perhaps (in answer to a question) "0" xentelape = maybe/perhaps/possibly (adverb) interrogative epistemic probability, "-kunte-": P/F-s kuntesi = to be unsure about kunteno = uncertain, unsure (e.g. people uncertain of themselves) kuntedeno = uncertain, unsure (e.g. uncertain outcome) Kuntevoisi? = Is that right/correct/true/so? AP/F-s kuntefisi = to wonder, to question oneself about A/P/F-d kuntekosi = to raise doubts in (someone) about A/P/F-s kuntetuesi = to confuse (someone) about A/P-d kuntepusi = to confound, to befuddle Someone once said that all truth is relative. The above derivations certainly seem to reflect this attitude, since they imply that the truth of a situation is more perceived than real; i.e. it is true only if it is true to a patient. However, keep in mind that the MIDDLE voice implies nothing about the nature of the unmentionable perceiver. It could just as well be the universe, your cat, or a supreme being. In spite of this, it is important to remember that 'truth' as derived above does NOT mean 'absolute truth' or 'reality'. Thus, we cannot use the modal to derive concepts such as 'to exist = to be real' or 'to create = to make real'. The modals do not imply reality - only the perception of reality. Another difference is that the 'truth' described here is inherently scalar, while the concept we derived earlier meaning 'real' (state root = "-veya-") is inherently binary. Although I listed a large number of useful derivations for the epistemic probability modality, I'm sure that there are many more. The modal concepts are so basic, that it shouldn't be surprising that they can be the source of so many useful words. However, for the sake of brevity, I will only list a few derivations for the remaining modalities: 100% deontic obligation (= obligation), "-pindu-": P/F-s pindusi = it is mandatory/compulsory/obligatory for P to F pindudeno = mandatory, compulsory, obligatory pindudeda = duty, obligation AP/F-s pindufisi = to feel obliged/obligated to... AP/F-d pindusuasi = to take on the obligation to... A/P/F-s pindutuesi = to obligate, to give an obligation to someone else, to require A/P/F-p pinduniosi = to charge (with an obligation) A/P/F-d pindukosi = to have (as in "I had John wash the dishes") high deontic obligation, "-gendu-": P/F-s gendusi = it is desirable for P to F gendudeno = desirable low deontic obligation, "-sondu-": P/F-s sondusi = it is undesirable for P to F sondudeno = undesirable 0% deontic obligation, "-nandu-": P/F-s nandusi = it is impossible/proscribed for P to F nandudeno = impossible/proscribed A/P/F-s nandutuesi = to prohibit undefined deontic obligation, "-xendu-": P/F-s xendusi = it is optional for P to F xendudeno = optional xenduvusi = to be optional for [The inverse form "xenduvusi" would be used for English sentences such as "Picking up the litter is optional for the guests".] A/P/F-s xendutuesi = to allow, to permit Interrogative deontic obligation, "-kundu-": [This modality will indicate that the patient is uncertain of the desirability of something.] P/F-s kundusi = to be unsure if F should be done, to be unsure if F is desirable (eg. I kundusi John buy a new car = I'm not sure if John should buy a new car.) 100% speaker-oriented obligation (= hortativity), "-pinka-": [Note that hortativity is a true speaker-oriented modality. Thus, we can derive a true, imperative verb from it.] A/P/F-p pinkaniosi = to demand that, to insist that, to order, to command pinkanioxemnasi = to beg ("-xemna-" is the groveling register MCM) pinkaniotenkosi = to beseech/implore/entreat ("-tenko-" is the humble register MCM) The non-agentive derivations are also useful: P/F-s pinkasi = it is imperative for P to F pinkadeno = imperative high speaker-oriented obligation, "-genka-": A/P/F-p genkaniosi = to encourage/urge low speaker-oriented obligation, "-sonka-": A/P/F-p sonkaniosi = to discourage 0% speaker-oriented obligation (= prohibitive), "-nanka-": A/P/F-p nankaniosi = to forbid, to deny permission undefined speaker-oriented obligation, "-xenka-": A/P/F-p xenkaniosi = to give permission It is also possible to add a 'speech' morpheme to a modal. This morpheme is the one we discussed earlier when we derived the verb meaning 'to apologize'. However, this morpheme simply indicates that speech is being used. It does NOT create a true imperative as in the above example, "sicaipinio", which was formed from a speaker-oriented modal. In the sample language, I will use the MCM "-ja-" to indicate that speech is being used. Here are some examples: A/P/F-p pinteniosi = to impart, to convey, to make known, to disclose pinteniojasi = to claim, to affirm, to assert, to say that something is true/correct/right A/P/F-d pintekosi = to convince, to show, to demonstrate, to make clear pintekojasi = to persuade, to talk into AP/F-s nantefisi = to disbelieve, to reject nantefijasi = to deny, to repudiate Keep in mind that these derivations simply imply that speech is being used - they are NOT imperatives! The speech morpheme "-ja-" will probably not be very useful for many states and actions, since verbs that are normally classified as speech acts are often used in non-speech situations, and our "-p" verbs capture both speech and non- speech senses very nicely. True speech acts (e.g. 'to screech' and 'to curse') have the speech component as part of their meaning and do not require a separate morpheme. There may be times, however, when it is necessary to use a "-p" verb in order to clearly indicate or emphasize that speech is being used, and so the speech morpheme will have some use for normal state and action verbs (e.g. the verb meaning 'to apologize'). In general, though, this morpheme should only be used to clearly indicate that speech is being used. Finally, the most obvious and generic application of "-ja-" is the basic speech act verb "jasi = janiosi" meaning 'to say/tell/speak', where its default class will be A/P/F-p. It will also be useful if other speech act morphemes start with "ja" as a mnemonic aid. For example, morphemes such as "jambu", "jaya", "jaste", "japliwa", etc. could be used for other speech acts. Now, let's look at a few derivations from other modalities: 100% epistemic sufficiency, "-pingo-": P/F-s pingosi = to be satisfied that, to feel that F is sufficient/adequate pingodeno = sufficient/adequate 0% epistemic sufficiency, "-nango-": P/F-s nangosi = to be dissatisfied that/with, to feel that F is insufficient/inadequate nangodeno = insufficient/inadequate high deontic necessity, "-getsi-": P/F-s getsisi = to need, to require (note that this is a VERB, not a pure modal!) getsino = in need getsibie = in need of, needing getsideno = necessary getsideda = needs (i.e. what is needed) getsiveda = necessity/need (the need itself) getsivegiu = the necessity/need for P-s getsiseno = needy A/P/F-s getsituesi = to deprive 100% epistemic evidentiality, "-pisna-": P/F-s pisnasi = it is evident/obvious to P that F pisnadesi = evident, obvious A/P/F-d pisnakosi = to prove, to verify pisnakovoino = conclusive ("-voi-" is the double middle CCM) high epistemic evidentiality, "-gesna-": P/F-s gesnasi = it is apparent to P that F gesnadeno = apparent, seeming A/P/F-d gesnakovoino = circumstantial low epistemic evidentiality, "-sosna-": A/P/F-d sosnakovoino = inconclusive 100% deontic inevitability, "-pisko-": P/F-s piskosi = to feel that F is inevitable/fated/ pre-ordained piskodeno = inevitable, unavoidable, pre-ordained high deontic inevitability, "-gesko-": P/F-s geskosi = to feel that F is 'meant to be' geskovuasi = "It was meant to be." ("-vua-" makes all arguments of a verb oblique) Finally, when "-fo" is applied to a modal, it is very similar to a combination of "ma" + "de" + "si", where "-ma-" is the P/F-s verb classifier and "-de-" is the middle CCM. The result is an F-s [-P] verb, which takes an embedded sentence as its only argument. For example, "John pintefo leave" meaning 'John definitely left' is similar to "Pintemadesi John leave" meaning 'It is accepted as true by some unspecified patient that John left'. However, there is an important difference between the two. When "-fo" is used, the resulting word is actually deictic, since the patient MUST be the speaker. When "-madesi" is used, the patient is unspecified and does not necessarily have to be the speaker. Thus, application of "-fo" to modals is completely compatible with its application to register and tense/aspect morphemes. In all such derivations, one or more of the implied arguments is deictic. 18.6 ARE THERE OTHER MODALITIES? Since modalities represent a speaker's judgement about a situation, and since it's possible for people to pass judgement in many different ways, the obvious question is whether we can implement other concepts as modalities, rather than as basic states. I am convinced that the answer is a resounding "YES", even though I've only discussed those modalities that I've read about or which seemed obvious to me. There is no doubt in my mind that other modalities exist, and that these modalities are likely to have formal representation (as inflections, auxiliaries, particles, etc.) within some natural languages. When trying to decide whether a concept is inherently modal in nature, we must keep in mind that a modality represents the speaker's judgement of a SITUATION. The concept must NOT represent the speaker's feelings towards the listener or a third party, nor can it represent an attitude that is CAUSED by a situation, the listener, or a third party; i.e. the speaker must be the source of the judgement. Also, the concept must not represent the state or behavior of an actual ENTITY - it must represent a judgement of a SITUATION. Upon further derivation, of course, the concept WILL represent the mental state of an actual entity (e.g. "to believe" from the modal concept 'true'). Modal concepts are inherently abstract. Normal states are not. Consider the following: yellow vs. odd old vs. true heavy vs. necessary In effect, a modality is not an INHERENT quality of a situation. It can not be objectively measured. Instead, it is externally imposed. Another feature that modal concepts all seem to have in common is that they, unlike normal states, are inherently challengeable because they are inherently subjective. Fortunately, it is definitely possible to test a concept to determine if it is inherently modal in nature. In English, we can test a concept M for modality by using one of the following two sentences: (1) It's M that he left early. (2) It's M that he leave early. If (1) makes sense, then M is an epistemic modality. If (2) makes sense, then M is a deontic modality. However, there are a small number of mental states in English that will pass test (1) even though they are not true modalities. Examples are "sad" and "curious". In order to detect these "false modals", we can apply a third test, as follows: (3) Everyone is M that he left early. If (3) makes sense, then M is NOT a modality, even if it passes test (1). Now, here is a list of other modal concepts that I believe are inherently modal in nature. Each of them passes the above tests: I say/believe that something is: 100% concept 0% concept -------------- -------------- interesting boring welcome unwelcome/imposition fortunate/beneficial unfortunate/detrimental normal odd/strange/abnormal correct/right incorrect/wrong good bad right/just/proper/ wrong/unjust/improper meet/fit acceptable/ unacceptable/ admissible/ inadmissable/ okay/ not okay/ advisable ill-advised in good taste in poor taste Note that morphemes for the last several examples can also be used as the 'good' and 'bad' quality morphemes that we discussed earlier in the section on augmentatives and diminutives. In fact, ALL of the modality morphemes should be useful in word derivation as modifiers of other roots. Natural languages contain many words that not only represent a referent but which also indicate the speaker's opinion or attitude towards the referent. Thus, modal morphemes can be used in the same way as register morphemes; i.e., as both lexical and sentential modifiers. In any case, it seems to me that the above concepts (and certainly others I've missed) are indeed modal in nature and should be treated as such. Another question that we need to answer is this: is it possible that epistemic and deontic concepts come in pairs? In other words, does each epistemic modal have a deontic counterpart and vice versa? For example, what is the deontic counterpart of epistemic goodness? What is the epistemic counterpart of deontic inevitability? And so on. Originally, I thought that they did come in pairs. Here are some examples of the pairings as I conceived them: Epistemic Deontic --------- ------- true mandatory/obligatory adequate/sufficient necessary obvious inevitable significant important good desirable However, while there does seem to be some kind of realtionship between the listed counterparts, I was never able to create precise semantic definitions of one in terms of the other. The only definitions I could come up with were ambiguous and unsatisfying. Finally, it is important not to confuse modal concepts with concepts which describe the inherent, non-subjective characteristics of processes or their results, such as 'easy', 'practical', 'legal', 'efficient', 'successful', and so on. For example, the 'advisability' of a process is inherently subjective, but it's 'practicality' can be determined objectively. Thus, advisability is a modality while practicality is not. Fortunately, rigorous application of the above tests for modality will prevent any mistakes. [Incidentally, I suggest that concepts such as 'practical', 'efficient', 'easy', and so on should NOT be assigned unique morphemes, at least not initially. These concepts are not very basic and I suspect that it will be possible to derive them from more mundane concepts. For example, is the concept 'practical' essentially synonymous with 'doable'? If so, then the word meaning both 'doable' and 'practical' is "zefinuveno", which we derived earlier, and the word meaning 'impractical' is "zefinuvenano". Note that the essential quality/ability CCM "-ve-" is likely to be used in all of these derivations.] 18.7 NON-CLAUSAL MODALITY So far, we've only discussed modals that modify an entire clause. However, it makes very good semantic sense to extend their use by allowing them to modify specific elements within a clause. To do this, the syntax of your AL will have to specify how the position of a modal within a sentence determines its scope. For example, if your AL is purely right-branching (i.e. VSO), then a clausal modal would appear before the verb, and a modal which modified a particular element in the sentence would immediately follow it. In our sample language, an obvious choice is to use "-di", the terminator for previous-word modifiers. Here are some examples using English word order and the interrogative modal morpheme "-kunte-": Kuntefo Billy hit Jimmy = Did Billy hit Jimmy? Billy hit kuntedi Jimmy = Did Billy HIT Jimmy? (or did he just yell at him?) Billy kuntedi hit Jimmy = Was it Billy that hit Jimmy? Billy hit Jimmy kuntedi = Was it Jimmy that Billy hit? Billy broke the window with a hammer kuntedi = Was it a hammer that Billy broke the window with? Other modals can also be used in this way. Here are a few examples: Louise nantefo go to the store = Louise didn't go to the store. Louise nantedi go to the store = It wasn't Louise who went to the store. OR = Louise is not the one who went to the store. Louise go to a store nantedi = It wasn't a STORE that Louise went to. Louise go to that nantedi store = It wasn't THAT store that Louise went to. OR = THAT store is not the one that Louise went to. Louise put the book under nantedi the bed (but on it) = Louise put the book not UNDER the bed (but ON it). Louise pintedi go to the store = It was Louise who went to the store. OR = Louise is the one who went to the store. Louise xentefo bought a lamp = Louise may have bought a lamp. Louise bought a lamp xentedi = It may be a lamp that Louise bought. OR = A lamp is what Louise may have bought. OR = What Louise may have bought is a lamp. Louise pindufo leave tomorrow = Louise has to leave tomorrow. Louise leave tomorrow pindudi = It's TOMORROW that Louise has to leave. And so on. When a single element of a sentence is modified by a modal as in the above examples, linguists refer to the process as _clefting_. However, this terminology is a result of analyzing English syntax, where a single sentence is split or 'cleft' into two clauses in order to achieve both emphasis and contrast. When a modal is used as we did above, the term _clefting_ can no longer apply since we are not actually splitting the sentence. Instead, we can refer to it simply as a form of emphasis that contains a strong element of contrast; i.e. 'contrastive emphasis'. Later, when I discuss TOPICALIZATION, we'll see how to deal with other forms of emphasis. 18.8 HEDGES There are times when we need to modify the modality of an utterance, implying that the situation is true/false/etc in spite of reasons to believe otherwise. Linguists refer to this process as "hedging". Here are some English examples: a. STRICTLY SPEAKING, his answer was correct. b. LOOSELY SPEAKING, a dolphin is a fish. c. TECHNICALLY, a penguin is a bird. d. Bill joined the SO-CALLED "Society for Universal Tolerance". In each case, the capitalized expression either affirms or denies the truth of a sentence or the accuracy of a label while implying that there is reason to think otherwise. Thus, example (a) can be paraphrased as "His answer was correct even though it is not what we expected, or even though there are reasons to feel that it was really incorrect". Example (b) indicates that a dolphin is NOT a fish, even though there are reasons to think otherwise. Example (c) is similar to (a) but implies that there is actual data or proof to support the claim. And example (d) implies that there may be reasons to believe that the name of the society is invalid. Thus, all hedges have two things in common: 1. they affirm or deny the modality of an expression; and 2. they add a semantic element with the meaning 'even though there are reasons to believe otherwise'. In the sample language, all degrees of modality are available separately, so there is no need to implement (1) - we simply need to use the correct degree. In order to implement (2), we can create a root/MCM that can be used as is or can be added to any word giving it the implication 'in spite of reasons to think otherwise'. In the sample language, we will use the root/MCM "-tomba-" for this purpose (default class = P-s). The most useful hedge words will be the adverb "tombape", and the adjective "tombano": Bill joined the tombano "Society for Universal Tolerance". = Bill joined the so-called/self-styled "Society for Universal Tolerance". The Society for Universal Tolerance NOT is_tolerant tombape. = The Society for Universal Tolerance is tolerant in name only. John behaved very well tombape. = John behaved very well contrary to expectations. OR = John behaved very well in spite of reasons to expect different behavior. OR = Actually, John behaved very well. The most common hedges can be formed by adding "tombape" to a sentence with an appropriate modality, which is actually what we did in the previous example. Here are some more examples: 100% probability: pintefo + tombape = strictly speaking, in truth, actually, indeed Example: John pintefo is a decent person tombape. = John IS actually a decent person. 0% probability: nantefo + tombape = In a sense, loosely speaking Example: A dolphin nantefo is a fish tombape. = In a sense, a dolphin is a fish. (literally: A dolphin is NOT a fish even though there are reasons to think otherwise.) It's also possible to apply the hedge MCM to other words. It will be especially useful with open-class state adverbs. For example, using the state root "-veya-" meaning 'real/existent', we can create the verb "veyatombasi" meaning 'in actuality' or 'actually' with the implication that there may be other reasons to believe otherwise or that the event was contrary to expectations. Note that "veyatombasi" is a VERB, and takes an entire embedded sentence as its single argument. In the same way, we can also derive useful equivalents to many English expressions using the word "speaking", such as "technically speaking", "empirically speaking", "frankly speaking", "mathematically speaking", "roughly speaking", "officially speaking", and so on. 18.9 DOES MODALITY HAVE STRUCTURE? When we discussed deictics, we saw how a basic distinction between 1st, 2nd, and 3rd person was able to explain the way deictics are used in natural languages. In other words, there was an underlying structure to deictic concepts. I can't help wondering if modality also has an underlying structure. The characteristics of modality that we've been discussing certainly imply that modality has structure, or at least rules that can be used to identify a concept as inherently modal or not. However, if we knew the structure of modality, we could PREDICT new modalities. With only rules, all we can do is eliminate potential contenders. There is also the question of whether epistemic and deontic concepts come in pairs. My gut feeling tells me that they do, but, so far, I have been unable to define the underlying relationship. In any case, I would definitely give a lot more thought to the basic concepts that underlie modality before implementing it in an AL. The list of modalities that I have provided here is unsatisfying to me because, although it provides testability, it lacks predictability. If modality DOES have structure, then we should be able to discover this structure, formalize it, and use it to predict the existence of OTHER modalities that we might otherwise miss. Of course, it's also possible that modality does NOT have structure, for the same reasons that basic states and actions do not have structure. Fortunately, the system being proposed here does not require that modality have structure, and can work quite well whether such structure exists or not. 19.0 ANAPHORA [This section is a compilation of a few articles I posted to the 'conlang' email discussion list in October 1993. Rather than spend a lot of time re-writing it to make it conform to the general style of this monograph, I decided to be lazy, and am inserting the original material with only some minor editing.] I don't feel that the design of a comprehensive yet simple anaphoric system is especially difficult. All natural languages have one. However, as is typical of natural languages, the anaphoric systems are clouded in idiosyncrasy and irregularity. One of the problems that many people have is that they tend to think of anaphora as belonging to a special, closed class of words. In English, we think of third person pronouns ("he", "she", "it", etc.), demonstratives ("this", "those", etc.), auxiliaries ("be", "have", and "do") and a handful of oddballs ("herself", "each other", "so", "such", etc.) as most of the available anaphora. Here are some examples: I love anchovy ice cream. Do you? (Anaphor: "do") William Shakespeare lived in a small town with his pet rock and his wife Fifi Yokohama. He would not eat veggies, she would not eat vegemite, and IT didn't eat at all. (Anaphora: "his", "he", "she", and "IT") John said he'll definitely attend the class on Creative Suffering. Louise will too. (Anaphor: "will") However, these 'closed class anaphora' are not the only ones. Consider the following: 1. Ten theoretical physicists and eight sanitary engineers attended the seminar. They were constantly heckling them. Obviously, we can't use the anaphora "they" and "them" in the second sentence of (1). Instead, we need something like: 2. The engineers were constantly heckling the physicists. The point, though, is that the words "engineers" and "physicists" in (2) are anaphora, and they can continue to be used as such throughout the remainder of the dialog. Thus, the head word of a phrase is used as a referent for the entire phrase. Since these anaphora are actually nouns, which are open class words, I'll call them _open class anaphora_. Sometimes, especially when writing, we define new open class anaphora explicitly, as in: 3. This contract is between Steven Speedemon (henceforth the first party) and Wendall Whiplash (henceforth the second party)... In (3) the anaphora are explicitly defined as "the first party" and "the second party". But we can also do it in informal writing and speech: 4. Ten computational linguists and ten theoretical linguists attended the seminar. The comps were constantly heckling the theos. Finally, the theos got so angry that they mooned the comps and left. Another common way to create open class anaphora is to use single letters or abbreviations: 5. In discussing the "Best Artificial Language Linguists Ever Designed" (BALLED), the designers forgot that there were many other lingwackos out there, who were out to get BALLED and who would ridicule it at every opportunity. Of course, once an abbreviation becomes recognizable without introduction, it will no longer be an anaphor - it will be a proper noun (like USA, IBM, etc). The major difference between the open (O) and closed (C) classes of anaphora is that the Os tend to keep their referents throughout the discourse, while the referents of the Cs are constantly changing. Thus, the anaphor "BALLED" in (5) will refer to the same thing throughout the dialog, while anaphora such as "he", "do", or "each other" will continually take on new meanings. One other thing should be mentioned. Most anaphora are "backward-referring"; that is, the anaphor refers to something that was mentioned earlier. In English, it is also possible to have "forward-referring" anaphora, as in: 6. After ordering a pint of his favorite ale, Robert was perplexed when the barmaid replied that the fishmonger was next door. The Great English Vowel Shift had begun. In (6) "his" precedes its referent "Robert". Forward-referring anaphora are sometimes called _cataphora_. So, how do you handle anaphora in an AL? In my opinion, the simplest, most natural, and most flexible solution is to use a form of contraction. The result would always be immediately recognizable as an anaphor by its form. The contraction could then be used as an anaphor for the entire phrase from that point on. You could modify this rule to allow the contraction to take on a new meaning if its pattern matches a new and different phrase. Here's how something like this might sound in English: The Sheboygan Bandits and the Milwaukee Dragoons faced off at Lovemud Stadium on Sunday. The Mil-goons beat the She-its out of their expected title. Using the system proposed here, I recommend the implementation of two types of anaphor: simple anaphora and compound anaphora. A simple anaphor will have two parts: the initial morpheme of the head word of the expression it refers to plus a special terminator. A compound anaphor will have three parts: the initial morpheme of the headword plus the initial morpheme of a significant modifier of the headword plus the special terminator. If the initial CV(V) of a morpheme is not itself a terminator, then it may be used instead of the complete morpheme. Here are the special terminators that we will use in the sample language: Noun: -ha Adjective: -ho Verb: -hi Adverb/case tag: -he For example, consider the following noun phrase: veyaneyada xawezoyano daino engineer sanitary ten "ten sanitary engineers" The simple anaphor could be either "veyaha" or "veha" (since "-ve-" is not a terminator), and the compound anaphor could be either "veyaxaweha", "vexaweha", "veyaxaha", "vexaha", "veyadaiha", or "vedaiha". The choice between "xa(we)-" and "dai-" would depend on whether the speaker thought the concept 'sanitary' or 'ten' was more important. In general, simple anaphora will have shorter lifetimes than compound anaphora. In fact, in the sample language, we will adopt the rule that a compound anaphor will never change its referent for the remainder of the discourse or text. [Incidentally, "veyaneyada" was derived from the root "-veya-", meaning 'real' or 'existent' plus the noun classifier "-neya-" to indicate a member of a profession. (The word for 'engineering' would thus be "veyatiwada", where "-tiwa-" is the classifier for fields of endeavor.) The word "xawezoyasi" is the A/P-s verb meaning 'to keep (someone/something) clean', and is the agentive form of the P-s verb "xawesi = xawesesi" meaning 'to be clean'.] Due to its inherent nature, an anaphor cannot (and SHOULD not!) undergo further derivation. Thus, if we need the genitive form of an anaphor, we will be required to use the open adjective "mabie". Fortunately, the normal interpretations of the non-noun forms of an anaphor of a noun phrase are completely useless. Because of this, I suggest that the non-noun forms have a genitive interpretation by default. For example, if the anaphor "veha" refers to 'ten sanitary engineers', we could say something like "veha were angry at veho boss", meaning 'THEY were angry at THEIR boss'. An anaphor of an adverb will probably not be needed very often because the generic anaphor "he" will almost always be adequate. It corresponds to the English expressions "thusly" or "in that way/manner". If an anaphor of a case tag is used, its meaning will include the case tag plus its argument. Similarly, an anaphor of a verb will refer to the verb and all of its arguments. But the anaphor can never take core arguments of its own, although it can be modified by an appropriate modifier, such as an oblique argument or adverb. The same applies to anaphora of case tags. For example, the sentence: John teyokosi his son to swim = John taught his son how to swim. could be immediately followed by: Tehi because he felt that ALL children should learn how to swim. where "tehi" is an anaphor for the complete first sentence. Thus, "tehi" would be translated as 'He did it' or 'He did so'. The case role introduced by "because" modifies "tehi". Forward-referring anaphora (i.e. _cataphora_) are not really necessary in a language. In my opinion, they should not be implemented at all. Earlier, we discussed how to implement reflexive constructions, as in: Samantha looked at herself in the mirror. In a case such as this (i.e. when the reflexive stands alone as opposed to being implemented with a CCM), it is also possible to use an anaphor instead: Samantha looked at saha in the mirror. where "saha" is an appropriate simple anaphor of "Samantha". [We'll discuss how to create proper nouns later.] In general, I feel that it is preferable to use the reflexive construction, if only because it seems to be almost universal among natural languages. Finally, it's interesting to contrast anaphora with deictics. Deictics, as we discussed earlier, are pointers to entities EXTERNAL to the discourse (e.g. this book, there, yesterday, you, then, etc.). Anaphora, however, are pointers to entities INTERNAL to the discourse (e.g. I saw Louise before SHE left, THAT is why she was so upset, IT caused all kinds of problems, etc.). Natural languages often use third person deictics for both functions (e.g. deictic: "Please hand me THAT book" vs. anaphoric: "I knew THAT"). In the system proposed here, deictics and anaphora are completely different, intentionally, because their semantics are completely different. This implies that the speaker should be careful to use deictics only where appropriate. For example, the word "they" is a deictic in "(Speaker points to some people nearby) who are THEY?", while "they" is an anaphor in "I saw Bill and Mary yesterday. THEY just bought a new house." With the system proposed here, third person personal pronouns will hardly ever be necessary. Instead, anaphora will almost always be used in their place. Some people may find this distinction a difficult one to master, especially if their native language allows third person deictics to be used as anaphora. However, the problem is not quite as severe as it may seem. Keep in mind that third person deictics refer to entities other than the speaker or listener. Thus, their meaning automatically INCLUDES any anaphoric referent. It is for this reason that many natural languages use third person deictics as anaphora. In other words, third person referents are usually both internal AND external to the discourse. Thus, either an anaphor or a deictic can be used. However, in the system proposed here, an anaphor is never ambiguous while a third person deictic can definitely be ambiguous. Consider the following: Bill visited John yesterday. He was totally drunk. If you use an anaphor, "he" will have only one possible referent. If you use a deictic, "he" can refer to either "Bill" or "John". It could even refer to someone other than Bill or John. Thus, use of deictics in place of anaphora for third person referents is semantically correct, but may be ambiguous. However, even in cases where ambiguity is unlikely, I feel that use of deictics in place of anaphora should be discouraged. 19.1 ANAPHORA AND DISAMBIGUATION During the discussion that took place on the conlang list, one individual criticized my proposed anaphoric system because it could not deal with the following kind of problem: A dog was attracted to a dog. But its owner kept it away from it. I agree that the proposed system cannot deal with this kind of situation, but I don't understand why anyone would WANT an anaphoric system to be able to deal with it (in our system, the anaphor "it" could only refer to the second dog, since the second dog was the last one mentioned). This kind of situation will only occur when the speaker is being humorous or intentionally ambiguous. As far as I'm concerned, if the speaker wants to have fun, then let him! Also, our system DOES allow for intentional ambiguity, since a deictic can be used in place of an anaphor. Besides, you could always distinguish between "the first dog" and "the second dog", or "the former" and "the latter". In my opinion, this is a non-problem, and I see no reason to implement a solution to it. However, we most certainly CAN deal with a more reasonable version of this sentence, such as: A big dog was attracted to a little dog. But its owner kept it away from it. Using compound anaphora, one possible English-like permutation would be: A big dog was attracted to a little dog. But bi-og's owner kept bi-og away from li-og. One other problem that cropped up in the discussion had to do with resolving the individual referents of a phrase that inherently referred to more than one entity. For example, does the phrase "two identical twins", provide a single referent or a double referent? How about the phrase "box of nuts and bolts" or "ten million civilians"? I strongly feel that a properly designed anaphoric system should be able to provide an unambiguous index to any referent. The system I propose here does this very well. Furthermore, if the referent is ambiguous, then the anaphor should be equally ambiguous. In other words, the anaphoric system should not be given the additional duty of disambiguating an ambiguous expression. Any disambiguation should be handled explicitly by the speaker. Thus, "a dog and a dog" is intentionally ambiguous (in addition to being unnatural). I do not feel that an anaphoric system should be required to resolve an intentional ambiguity. In the case of "two identical twins", only one referent was provided, and the system proposed here can deal with it very well. The referent is "two identical twins", and one possible English-like anaphor would be "id-ins". Now, some people feel that an anaphoric system must also provide an unambiguous index to EACH of the twins (e.g. "he" and "she"). If so, then the anaphoric system must provide an index to a referent that has not even been mentioned. If neither of the twins has been mentioned separately, then the referent does not exist, and I see no reason to provide an index to a non-existent referent. In other words, what some people seem to want is an anaphoric system that can also provide _semantic decomposition_. I do not feel that this should be the purpose of an anaphoric system, even though it is occasionally possible in natural languages. Considering the many, many possible kinds of groupings (twins, clubs, choirs, companies, orchards, boxes of spare parts, etc.), such a system would be very complex, and I'm not even sure if it would be possible. In summary, I feel that an anaphoric system should be rich enough to provide an unambiguous index to any unambiguous referent. Such a system should NOT have the additional duties of disambiguation or semantic decomposition. 20.0 RELATIVE CLAUSES AND RESUMPTIVE PRONOUNS In my earlier essay on syntax, I discussed two kinds of relative clause that are most common among natural languages. The first kind, which is found in a large minority of natural languages (including English), uses a single relative conjunction (e.g. "which", "that", or "who") plus a _gap_, as in the following example: John saw the book WHICH Bill bought (gap). Note that "the book" is the object of the verb "saw", as well as the implied object of the verb "bought". The gap is required by English syntax. The second kind of relative clause, which is found in a slight majority of natural languages, uses a relative conjunction plus a _resumptive pronoun_, as in the following examples: John saw the book WHICH Bill bought IT. Here, the gap is filled by the resumptive pronoun "IT" that refers back to "the book". The use of resumptive pronouns has one disadvantage compared to the use of gaps, but has three advantages. The single disadvantage is that an extra word is needed; i.e. the resumptive pronoun (RP) itself. The advantages are as follows: 1. ANY noun can be relativized, regardless of the function it performs in the embedded sentence, or of the number of functions it performs: Gap: *I saw the car WHOSE driver got thrown from. RP: I saw the car WHICH ITS driver got thrown from IT. Here, "IT" is the resumptive pronoun and has the morphological form of a noun. "ITS" is the possessive form of the resumptive pronoun. 2. ANY noun can be relativized, regardless of how deeply the gap or resumptive pronoun is embedded: Gap: *This is the man WHO Louise bought a car from the same dealer that sold a Cadillac to. RP: This is the man WHO Louise bought a car from the same dealer that sold a Cadillac to HIM. Here, "HIM" is the resumptive pronoun and unambiguously links to "the man". 3. Use of a resumptive pronoun allows it to be combined with other nouns in coordinated structures: RP: I just met this real tall guy WHO my sister dated both HIM and HIS real short brother. In order to deal with the above examples, languages like English must split them up into two or more sentences. For example, the third example would have to be something like this: My sister dated this real tall guy and his real short brother. I just met the tall one. Since I feel that the advantages of resumptive pronouns significantly outweigh the single disadvantage, I will not spend any more time discussing the gap approach. [Incidentally, the use of gaps has a major disadvantage that does not apply at all to the use of resumptive pronouns. Computer parsing of relative clauses using gaps can be extremely complicated, and can often fail completely without even more complicated semantic/contextual processing.] 20.1 IMPLEMENTATION OF RELATIVE CLAUSES We need to create only three basic words to completely implement relative clauses that use resumptive pronouns: a relative conjunction, a resumptive pronoun, and a genitive form of the resumptive pronoun. A relative conjunction simply provides a non-specific link between a noun and the relative clause that modifies it. Thus, it performs exactly the same function as the generic linker "mabie" which we've used extensively so far. The difference, though, is that we've always used it to link two noun phrases. However, there is no reason why the argument of "mabie" cannot be a complete embedded sentence. In other words, the genitive linker "mabie" performs the function of the English genitive preposition "of" when followed by a noun phrase, and performs the function of the English relative conjunctions "that/who/which" when followed by an embedded clause. This is more easily underdstood if we paraphrase these functions as in the following examples: the box "of" toys = the box 'of-the-entity' toys the boy "who" broke the window. = the boy 'of-the-event' he broke the window You can also use the paraphrases "associated-with-the-entity" and "associated- with-the-event". Note that, while this approach may seem odd to speakers of English, it is semantically correct. In fact, many natural languages (most notably Mandarin Chinese) use exactly the same approach. Thus, in the sample language, we will use the following: Relative conjunction: mabie For the resumptive pronoun and its genitive form, we have two choices: we can use anaphora or we can create two invariant particles for use specifically as resumptive pronouns. The sample language will provide both options. And since we've already discussed anaphora, I will concentrate on the use of particles in the remainder of this discussion. Here are the particles we will use: Resumptive pronoun: ka Genitive resumptive pronoun: xaka Here are a few examples using "mabie", "ka", and "xaka": The shirt mabie you want ka is on the bed. = The shirt that you want is on the bed. The police caught the man mabie ka robbed the bank. = The police caught the man who robbed the bank. Here's the hammer mabie he broke the window with ka. = Here's the hammer that he broke the window with. They examined the room mabie the fire started in ka. = They examined the room that the fire started in. Here are some that are impossible to do in English: I saw the car mabie John met the little old lady who built ka in three days. = John met the little old lady who built a car in three days. I saw the car. I just threw out a book mabie John was wondering if I would lend ka and a few others to him. = I just threw out a book. John was wondering if I would lend it and a few others to him. Here are some examples using the genitive form of the resumptive pronoun, "xaka": That's the man whose wife the police just arrested. = That's the man mabie the police just arrested xaka wife. That's the man whose wife was just arrested by the police. = That's the man mabie xaka wife was just arrested by the police. Note that there is never any ambiguity because "mabie" always links to the closest preceding noun, and "ka/xaka" always links to the closest preceding "mabie" that is being used as a relative conjunction. Note also, that "mabie" can be glossed in English as either "who", "which", or "that", depending on it's referent. For a relative clause that is embedded inside another relative clause, there is no real need for a different relativizer or resumptive pronoun - simply let them operate like a push/pop stack. In other words, when a level of embedding is exited, the previous level again becomes effective. Here is an example: *I saw the gun that the bank robber who the police just caught killed the teller with. I saw the gun (mabie the bank robber (mabie the police just caught ka) killed the teller with ka). The parentheses illustrate the nesting levels. Incidentally, linguists refer to this process as _center embedding_. Center embeddings such as the above are generally forbidden in languages that use gaps in relative clauses. However, center embeddings are quite common in languages that use resumptive pronouns, since there is less chance of ambiguity. However, I must caution the reader that all natural languages seem to limit the NUMBER of nesting levels that are allowed. For example, I know of no language that will allow the speaker to embed an additional relative clause inside the innermost clause of the above example. This restriction seems to be due to the increased processing difficulty of such structures. The processing difficulty of relative clauses (regardless of the type or depth of embedding) may possibly be reduced by completely bracketing the relative clause. For example, Persian (also known as Farsi) introduces a relative clause with a particle equivalent to "mabie", but also terminates the relative clause by appending a special morpheme to the last word in the clause. You may want to consider doing this in your own AL. [Incidentally, Persian also uses resumptive pronouns.] Finally, keep in mind that it's really not necessary to use the particles "ka" and "xaka" for resumptive pronouns. Simple anaphora of the noun being modified would be just as effective and, in some cases, would allow more freedom of expression. In fact, many (and perhaps most) natural languages that use resumptive pronouns use the same morphemes that are used for anaphora. Still, there's no reason why you can't allow both approaches. 20.2 NOMINAL RELATIVE CLAUSES Relative clauses can either MODIFY nouns or ACT as nouns. Those that act as nouns are usually called _nominal_ or _headless_ relative clauses. In our sample language, these can be easily implemented by using the open noun form of the relative conjunction rather than the open adjective form. In other words, we can use "magiu" instead of "mabie". Here are a few examples: I know WHO broke the window. = I know magiu ka broke the window. They saw WHAT John brought. = They saw magiu John brought ka. She showed me WHERE the boys went. = She showed me magiu the boys went medope ka. [Here, "medope" is the 'destination' case tag that we derived earlier. Literally, the sentence can be glossed as 'She showed me what the boys went to it'.] He told me WHO he bought it for. = He told me magiu he bought it gupe ka. [Here, "gupe" is the 'beneficiary' case tag that we derived earlier.] You told me WHY you sold it. = You told me magiu you sold it fiape ka. [Here, "fiape" (also "veyavipe") is the 'reason' case tag that we derived earlier.] Bill told me HOW he did it. = Bill told me magiu he did it zejope ka. [Here, "zejope" is the 'means/method' case tag that we derived earlier.] Note that "magiu", the open noun form of the relative conjunction, can be paraphrased as "the person/place/time/thing which" or simply "that which". Thus, for nominal relative clauses, the open noun form of the relative conjunction acts as both the relative conjunction and the argument of the preceding verb. It's also possible to use derivations of the case tags directly, without a relative conjunction. In order to do this, however, we must invert the case tag, convert it to a noun, and then open up its argument structure. For example, the P/F-s locative case tag "mepe" can be paraphrased as 'being at'. Thus, the OPEN F/P-d inverse noun form "mevigiu" means simply 'the location where'. In other words, the argument of the open noun (i.e. the embedded sentence or the patient of the embedded sentence) will be the patient of the inverted locative: She showed me WHERE the boys bought the magazine. = She showed me MEVIGIU the boys bought the magazine. [Literally, this can be glossed as 'She showed me the location where the boys bought the magazine'.] Let's do the same for the other examples that used case tags: He told me WHO he bought it FOR. = He told me GUVIGIU he bought it. [In English, this can be closely rendered as 'He told me the beneficiary for whom he bought it'.] You told me WHY you sold it. = You told me VEYAGIU you sold it. [This sentence can be glossed as 'You told me the reason for your selling it'.] Bill told me HOW he did it. = Bill told me ZEJOVIGIU he did it. [This sentence can be glossed as 'Bill told me the method of his doing it'.] This approach can also be extended to situations that do not have close English counterparts: I saw where he was walking towards. = I saw magiu he was walking meguipe ka. OR = I saw meguivigiu he was walking. [Here, "meguipe" is the 'potential destination' case tag. The second sentence can be glossed as 'I saw the towards-location of his walking' OR 'I saw the place towards which he was walking'.] The astute reader may now be wondering why there is any need AT ALL for relative conjunctions, since we can always use an appropriate OPEN ADJECTIVE in its place. Here is an example: I saw the building that he was walking towards. = I saw the building mabie he was walking meguipe ka. OR = I saw the building meguivibie he was walking. In other words, we can take advantage of the perfect symmetry inherent in the way we are designing case tags. If a case tag can link an argument of a main verb to its own argument, the inverse form can perform the exact reverse operation: link the argument appearing before the case tag to an argument of the sentence that follows it. This is exactly what we did in the last example. Thus, the inverse adjective form can be paraphrased as 'X-which', where "X" is a case tag. Here's one more example: There's the girl that he bought the flowers for. = There's the girl mabie he bought the flowers gupe ka. OR = There's the girl guvibie he bought the flowers. Here, "guvibie" is exactly equivalent to English "for whom". However, at first glance, it may seem that this approach does not lend itself very well to relativizing the subject or object of an embedded clause, because subjects and objects do not require case tags. For these, it seems that we will need to perform a passive or anti-passive operation on the embedded verb and use the appropriate form of the oblique case tag. Here are two examples: The police caught the man who robbed the bank. = The police caught the man mabie ka robbed the bank. OR = The police caught the man nuvibie the bank was robbed. [Here, "nuvibie" is derived from the passive oblique case tag "nupe", which we derived earlier. Thus, "nuvibie" is equivalent to English "by whom".] The shirt that you want is on the bed. = The shirt mabie you want ka is on the bed. OR = The shirt gavibie you want(anti-passive) is on the bed. [Here, "gavibie" is derived from the oblique anti-passive case tag "gape", which we derived earlier. Note that we have to use the anti- passive form of the verb "want", and since English does not have an anti-passive construction, there is no way to truly capture the anti-passive sense. All we can say is that "gavibie" is equivalent to the English "who/which/that" when it refers to the object of the embedded clause.] Thus, it's possible to implement relative clauses without the need for relative conjunctions. However, will doing so force people to use an anti-passive construction on the verb which they may find difficult to master? No. Keep in mind that when using case tags like "nupe" and "gape", it is NOT necessary to mark the verb itself as passive or anti-passive. In fact, as we discussed earlier, doing so is redundant. Thus, in the above two examples, there is no need at all to mark the verb "to rob" as passive or the verb "to want" as anti-passive. Thus, there is really no need to implement the relative conjunction "mabie" and the resumptive pronouns "ka" and "xaka", since their functions can be performed more efficiently by appropriate derivations of case tags. However, the use of relative conjunctions and resumptive pronouns is very common among natural languages, and the AL designer may wish to emulate them. It is also possible, of course, to provide both options, which we are doing here. Finally, relative conjunctions and nominals can take numeric multipliers. Here are a few examples (I've repeated a few numeric morphemes below for easy reference): -vastu- seven -saksi- all, the whole amount -mai- many, a lot, a large amount -zonja- any, one or more, greater than zero He'll tell zonjano magiu ka is there. OR He'll tell mazonjagiu ka is there. = He'll tell whoever is there. I saw maino magiu he owned ka. OR I saw mamaigiu he owned ka. = I saw the many things that he owned. I saw saksino magiu he owned ka. OR I saw masaksigiu he owned ka. = I saw all/everything that he owned. I saw vastuno magiu he brought ka. OR I saw mavastugiu he brought ka. = I saw the seven things that he brought. And so on. In fact, since the relative conjunction is actually an adjective, it can take an adjective modifier (i.e. a previous-word modifier), and since a nominal relative conjunction is actually a noun, it can be modified by an adjective. For example, we could create a sentence such as "I saw maino beautiful magiu she owned ka", meaning 'I saw the many beautiful things that she owned'. 20.3 NON-RESTRICTIVE RELATIVE CLAUSES All of the relative clauses we've discussed so far are typically referred to as _restrictive_ relative clauses, since they 'restrict' or 'reduce' the number of possible referents to the head noun. Some languages, such as English, allow the same form to be used with a non-restrictive sense (but with a noticeable difference in timing and intonation). These clauses simply provide additional information about the head noun. Here are a few examples: Restrictive: The man who robbed the bank... Non-restrictive: The elephant, which is a large animal, ... Restrictive: The mower that is in the garage is broken. Non-restrictive: The mower, which is in the garage, is broken. Since a non-restrictive relative clause is the same as any other kind of parenthetical structure, I feel that it should be treated as such. In my opinion, it should NOT be treated in the same way as a restrictive relative clause, for the simple reason that the two are semantically quite different. [I will discuss how to deal with parenthetical structures later.] 21.0 INTERROGATIVES In the section on modality, we discussed how non-clausal modals could be used to implement English cleft sentences (e.g. "Was it John that just left?"). We now need to address how to implement more general interrogatives, in which the listener is being asked, in effect, to 'fill in a blank'. Here are some English examples: WHO closed the window? WHY did he close the window? HOW did he close the window? WHERE did he close the window? And so on. We also need interrogative modifiers, as in the following: WHICH boy closed the window? WHAT kind of people live here? HOW many people live here? HOW heavy was the box? And so on. In order to create interrogative sentences, we used the interrogative probability modality. However, that modality questions the TRUTH of an event. What we need here is a way to represent an empty argument in the argument structure of a sentence - an argument which the listener is being asked to provide. Since this is quite different from the interrogative probability modality, it must be implemented differently. In my opinion, the easiest way to implement general interrogatives is to create a unique interrogative morpheme which can be used generically or can be made part of larger words. In the sample language, we will use the MCM "-ku-" for this purpose. Thus, the completely generic noun will be "kuda". We will also adopt the convention that whenever "-ku-" is affixed to a verbal stem, it will fill the FINAL argument in the argument structure, making the use of "kuda" unnecessary in that position. We will also assume that, like "-na-", the default verb class of stand-alone "-ku-" is "0". Here are some examples: Who closed the window? = Kuda benzosi the window? [Here, "benzosi" is the A/P-d verb meaning 'to closed'.] What did Billy close? = Billy benzosi kuda? = Billy benzokusi? [In the second example, "-ku-" fills the object (i.e. patient) position of the verb, converting it to an interrogative.] Who closed what? = Kuda benzosi kuda? = Kuda benzokusi? Why did he close the window? = He benzosi the window fiape kuda? = He benzosi the window fiakupe? [Here, "fiape" is the reason case tag. Note how "-ku-" fills the object position of the case tag in the second example.] How did he close the window? = He benzosi the window zejope kuda? = He benzosi the window zejokupe? [Here, "zejope" is the method case tag.] Where did he close the window? = He benzosi the window mepe kuda? = He benzosi the window mekupe? [Here, "mepe" is the locative 'at' case tag.] How heavy is the box? = The box hayumasi kuda? = The box hayumakusi? [Here, we are using the P/F-s verb "hayumasi" meaning 'to weigh'. As we discussed earlier in the chapter on counts and measures, it is the focused version of the P-s verb "hayusi" meaning 'to be heavy'. The stand-alone UNFOCUSED verb "hayukusi" means simply "Which one is heavy?" or "Which ones are heavy?".] What is a duck? = Kuda vevisi guasuda? [Literally, this means 'What is the nature of a duck?', where "-ve-" is the essential quality CCM and "-vi-" is the inverse CCM. Refer to the chapter on CCMs to see how "-vevi-" is derived.] Kusi? = Huh? or What? Other parts-of-speech are also useful. Here are some examples: Which duck(s) closed the window? = Kuno guasuda benzosi the window? = Guasukuda benzosi the window? Whose pencil is this? = This is kuxano pencil? [Here, "-xa-" is the genitive CCM.] What kind of people live here? = Vevikuno people live here? [A more accurate gloss would be 'What qualities or characteristics do the people living here possess?'. See below for additional comments on "kuno" and compare with "vevikuno".] For the English expression 'how many' or 'how much', we need a scalar state root to represent the concept of 'having quantity or amount', just as "-hayu-" represents the concept of 'having heaviness/weight', "-lenga-" represents the concept of 'having (spatial) length', and so on. When the verb is focused, the focus will represent the actual quantity or amount. For example, if the scalar state root "-kanti-" represents the concept 'having quantity/amount', we can do the following: How many boxes are there (= the boxes number how many)? = The boxes kantimasi kuda? = The boxes kantimakusi? How many people live here? = The people who live here kantimasi kuda? = The people who live here kantimakusi? = Kantimakuno people live here? Numeric morphemes can also be used very productively with "-ku-". For example, "kufeda" means 'which one', "kufegeda" means which ones', "kududa" means 'which two', the adjective "kufeno" means 'which single/solitary', etc. [In fact, the non-specific numerics that we created earlier are actually macros of "-kanti-" plus the scalar polarity morphemes. For example, "-mai-", meaning 'many', is actually a macro for "kanti + ge", "-pewa-", meaning 'few', is a macro for "kanti + so", and so on.] Note that "kuno" and the English translation 'which' do not overlap completely. The word "kuno" represents any possible modifiers of the noun. Thus, the sentence "Kuno guasuda benzosi the window?" is more accurately glossed as 'What can you say about the duck or ducks that closed the window?'. The English word "which" sometimes has this more general sense, but it more often has the sense 'which one' or 'which ones'. To obtain this more precise sense in the sample language, we can use "kufeno" or "kufegeno". In the above numeric derivations, we MUST place the numeric morpheme AFTER "-ku-" because of the morphological rules of the sample langauge. In other words, since a morpheme always modifies what appears to its left, "-ku-" adds the meaning 'What can can you say about what appears to the left?. Thus, "fekuno" means 'What can you say about the "oneness" of the noun it modifies?', while "kufeno" means 'What can you say about the noun it modifies, of which there is exactly one?'. Here are some examples: Kufeno duck left early? = Which duck left early? = Which one of the ducks left early? Fekuno guasuda left early? = What do you mean that ONE duck left early? = Just one duck left early? You don't say! Tell me more! Do not confuse "fekuno" and similar derivations with the interrogative modals that we discussed earlier. The modals question the truth of an assertion. Use of "-ku-" does not at all question the truth of the assertion, but simply asks for more information. In summary, "kuda" (or a derivative) occupies the position of a missing word or expression that would have provided more detailed information, while indicating that it should be replaced by something more specific. When it is affixed to a verbal stem, it effectively replaces the FINAL argument in the argument structure with a question mark. When affixed to a non-verbal stem, it asks for more information about the stem. Use of "-ku-" never questions the truth of an assertion (as interrogative modals do). It simply asks for more information. 22.0 MORE ON RELATIONSHIPS There are several very general kinds of relationships that have been heavily studied by semanticians. Their simplest and most basic forms are all P/F-s verbs. I will simply list them and provide examples of their use. By now, potential derivations using these words (and there are MANY of them) should be obvious. Here is a partial list: Equality: P/F-s -> 'to be', 'to be equal to', 'to be the same as' E.g. John is the new president of the company. [This is the verb "kapsusi", which we derived earlier when we discussed the 'state' case role. We also derived a few other useful words from the same root in the section on polarity. The unfocussed P-s adjective has the meaning 'steady' or 'unchanging'.] Equivalence: P/F-s -> 'to be equivalent to', 'to amount to', 'to be comparable to' E.g. The cross-border raid was equivalent to an act of war. Similarity: P/F-s -> 'to be like', 'to be similar to', 'to share/have something in common with' E.g. John is like his father. [This is the verb "losi", which we derived earlier when we discussed the _manner_ case role. We also derived several other useful words from the same root in the section on polarity.] Analogy/Proportionality: P/F-s -> 'to be analogous to', 'to be proportional to' E.g. A dog's relationship to a puppy is analogous to a cat's relationship to a kitten. (i.e. A dog is to a puppy as a cat is to a kitten.) Execution for murder is analogous to fines for petty theft. (i.e. Execution is to murder as a fine is to petty theft.) Volume is proportional to the radius cubed. Paronymy: P/F-s -> 'to be a derivative/derivation of', 'to derive from' E.g. The verb clarify is a derivation of the adjective "clear". Kerosene is a derivative of crude oil. [Incidentally, P is referred to as the _paronym_, while F is referred to as the _base_. The root for this concept in the sample language is simply "-mante-", which is the process result CCM discussed earlier. We also used it to derive the worm meaning 'mathematics'.] Hyponymy: P/F-s -> 'to be a kind of', 'to be an example of', 'to be a way of' Inverse F/P-s -> 'to subsume', 'to include' E.g. A horse is a kind of mammal. Mammals include horses, dogs, and cats. [Incidentally, P is referred to as a _hyponym_ of F, and F is referred to as a _superordinate_ of P. Thus, 'horse' is a hyponym of 'mammal', and 'mammal' is a superordinate of 'horse'.] Relatedness: P/F-s -> 'to be related to', 'to be in the same class as' E.g. Cats are related to dogs, both being mammals. Clams are related to trees, both being living creatures. Hills are related to mountains, hills being smaller. [I'm not sure if this distinction is really necessary, since the similarity relationship seems to cover both concepts.] Compatibility: P/F-s -> 'to be compatible/consistent with' E.g. My views are compatible with yours. His approach is consistent with his earlier work. Constituency: P/F-s -> 'to be part of', 'to be a component of' Inverse F/P-s -> 'to include', 'to contain', 'to have (as a component or part)', 'to be made (up) of', 'to consist of' E.g. A finger is part of the hand. The doghouse is made mostly of plywood. A triangle has exactly three angles. [Do not confuse a constituency relationship with a count/group relationship. Constituency implies that the parts may be quite different in nature, while a group consists of several similar components. For count/group relationships, use the P/F-s numeric derivation "femasi", meaning 'to be one of', which we derived earlier. Incidentally, P is referred to as the _meronym_ of F, while F is referred to as the _holonym_ of P. Thus, 'finger' is a meronym of 'hand', and 'hand' is a holonym of 'finger'.] Supplementation: P/F-s -> 'to be in addition to', 'to be a supplement to' E.g. The money is a supplement to the normal wage. Alternative: P/F-s -> 'to be an alternative to', 'to be a substitute for' E.g. Compromise is the only alternative to war.