On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Pierre Abbat
<phma@phma.optus.nu> wrote:
On Thursday 24 February 2011 10:13:11 Ian Johnson wrote:
> That seems like a pretty significant irregularity to me; if {no da} fills a
> predicate place, it is as if {na} were put in, but if {no da} fills a TAG
> place, it isn't. Or is it that {broda TAG} is a new predicate which is
> false when {broda TAG no da} is true even though {broda} itself may be
> true?
"noda" works the same way whether it's in a numbered place or a tagged place.
Prepositions (including tense markers) can be negated, though, whereas FA
cannot.
"fasnu bai noda" doesn't mean "happens without compulsion", it means "doesn't
happen with compulsion", i.e. it may or may not happen, but if it happens, it
is not compelled. For "happens without compulsion", I'd say "fasnu bainai".
I assume the point here is that, because we are dealing with existentials, "fasnu bai noda" -> "no da zo'u fasnu bai da", there is no X such that there is an occurence forced by X. So there may or may not be an occurrence, but if there is, it's unforced? That's a shame, as it does clash with most natlangs. It seems to imply that we either have to break it out into two claims, "fasnu .ije go'i bai noda", or invert the modal, "fasnu fi'o nalbai ro da" or something. (or does that last still not work?)
--gejyspa