sAE: Difference between revisions

From Lojban
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
m (Conversion script moved page SAE to sAE: Converting page titles to lowercase)
 
(3 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:


Haspelmath (2001) lists further features characteristic of European languages (but also found elsewhere):
Haspelmath (2001) lists further features characteristic of European languages (but also found elsewhere):
# verb-initial order in yes/no questions; [optionally possible in Lojban]
# verb-initial order in yes/no questions
# comparative inflection of adjectives (e.g. English ''bigger''); [optionally possible in Lojban]
#*optionally possible in Lojban
# conjunction ''A, B and C''; [no, needs extra {ke ... ke'e} brackets for nesting, the default is "A and B and C"]
# comparative inflection of adjectives (e.g. English ''bigger'')
# syncretism of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comitative_case comitative] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_case instrumental] cases (e.g. English '''''with''' my friends'' vs. '''''with''' a knife''); [terrible polysemy, but comitative is vague enough to be used instead of instrumental, so yes, possible]
#*optionally possible in Lojban
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppletivism suppletivism] in ''second'' vs. ''two''<wbr></wbr>; [of course not, it's stupid and has mostly historical explanations]
# conjunction ''A, B and C''
# no distinction between alienable (e.g. legal property) and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inalienable_possession inalienable] (e.g. body part) possession; [possible with {pe}]
#*no, needs extra '''ke ... ke'e''' brackets for nesting, the default is "A and B and C"
# no distinction between [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clusivity inclusive and exclusive] first-person plural pronouns ("we and you" vs."we and not you"); [not possible yet, always distinguishable, probably the definition of SAE "we" should be "I and other people, optionally including the listener". {za'u mi} is a possible solution although doubted by some]
# syncretism of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comitative_case comitative] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_case instrumental] cases (e.g. English ''<u>with</u> my friends'' vs. ''<u>with</u> a knife'')
# no productive usage of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduplication reduplication]; [yes, not used]
#*terrible polysemy, but comitative is vague enough to be used instead of instrumental, so yes, possible
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topic_(linguistics) topic] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_(linguistics) focus] expressed by intonation and word order; [possilbe with intonation; possible by word order, which is probably an universal]
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppletivism suppletivism] in ''second'' vs. ''two''
# word order [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject%E2%80%93verb%E2%80%93object subject–verb–object]; [yes, by default]
#*of course not, it's stupid and has mostly historical explanations
# only one [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerund gerund], preference for finite subordinate clauses; [well, one gerund is definitely possible]
# no distinction between alienable (e.g. legal property) and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inalienable_possession inalienable] (e.g. body part) possession
# specific "neither-nor" construction; [not very specific, a part of a neat conjunctive system]
#*possible with {{jvs|pe}}
# phrasal adverbs (e.g. English ''already'', ''still'', ''not yet''); [can be seen as advebrs]
# no distinction between [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clusivity inclusive and exclusive] first-person plural pronouns ("we and you" vs. "we and not you")
# tendency towards replacement of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_tense past tense] by the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_(grammar) perfect].~ [pragmatically possible, but only as a tendency, not as a rule]
#*not possible yet, always distinguishable, probably the definition of SAE "we" should be "I and other people, optionally including the listener". Experimental {{{jvs|mi'ai}}} is a possible solution.
# no productive usage of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduplication reduplication]
#*yes, not used
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topic_(linguistics) topic] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_(linguistics) focus] expressed by intonation and word order
#*possilbe with intonation; possible by word order, which is probably an universal
# word order [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject%E2%80%93verb%E2%80%93object subject–verb–object]
#*yes, by default
# only one [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerund gerund], preference for finite subordinate clauses
#*well, one gerund is definitely possible
# specific "neither-nor" construction
#*not very specific, a part of a neat conjunctive system
# phrasal adverbs (e.g. English ''already'', ''still'', ''not yet'')
#*can be seen as advebrs
# tendency towards replacement of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_tense past tense] by the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_(grammar) perfect]
#*pragmatically possible as a tendency, not as a rule

Latest revision as of 09:16, 30 June 2014

Notes in square brackets of whether each feature is possible in Lojban.

Haspelmath (2001) lists further features characteristic of European languages (but also found elsewhere):

  1. verb-initial order in yes/no questions
    • optionally possible in Lojban
  2. comparative inflection of adjectives (e.g. English bigger)
    • optionally possible in Lojban
  3. conjunction A, B and C
    • no, needs extra ke ... ke'e brackets for nesting, the default is "A and B and C"
  4. syncretism of comitative and instrumental cases (e.g. English with my friends vs. with a knife)
    • terrible polysemy, but comitative is vague enough to be used instead of instrumental, so yes, possible
  5. suppletivism in second vs. two
    • of course not, it's stupid and has mostly historical explanations
  6. no distinction between alienable (e.g. legal property) and inalienable (e.g. body part) possession
    • possible with pe
  7. no distinction between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural pronouns ("we and you" vs. "we and not you")
    • not possible yet, always distinguishable, probably the definition of SAE "we" should be "I and other people, optionally including the listener". Experimental mi'ai is a possible solution.
  8. no productive usage of reduplication
    • yes, not used
  9. topic and focus expressed by intonation and word order
    • possilbe with intonation; possible by word order, which is probably an universal
  10. word order subject–verb–object
    • yes, by default
  11. only one gerund, preference for finite subordinate clauses
    • well, one gerund is definitely possible
  12. specific "neither-nor" construction
    • not very specific, a part of a neat conjunctive system
  13. phrasal adverbs (e.g. English already, still, not yet)
    • can be seen as advebrs
  14. tendency towards replacement of past tense by the perfect
    • pragmatically possible as a tendency, not as a rule
Retrieved from "https://mw.lojban.org/index.php?title=sAE&oldid=102716"