Muke Tever wrote:
> _Describing Morphosyntax_ has names for a few of these:
> abilit[at]ive = "potential"
> volitive = "optative"
> debitive = "deontic"

I own Describing Morphosyntax, haven't read the whole thing yet (just
got it recently), but the volitive and optative aren't the same thing.
Volitive refers to the *subject's* desire to do something, whereas
optative refers to the *speaker's* desire.

Additionally, I'm not sure whether the debitive, which was described as
"to have to", means being *obliged* or being *forced*. If it's the
former, it does in fact match up with the deontic.

> Of course, you could have a permissive as its own mood, but then you could also
> have it as a causative on an abilitive verb, couldntcha...

Hunh. Something that would literally translate as "to be allowed to be
able to run" would actually mean "to cause to run", then? I don't see
the logic, but then since when are natlangs (and, by extension,
artlangs) logical?

- Ian Maxwell
C'est la vie, c'est la guerre, c'est la pomme de terre.

CONLANGER CODE: CU v1.1 !lm+ cN:R:N:H a+ y n19:1 !B* A+ E--- L+ N1<2 Im
k-- ia@:@ p@ s@ m- o P-- S--- A'liath