On 26 February 2017 at 20:32, Aidan Aannestad <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Thanks for the comments!
> On 2017/02/26 20:33:29, Logan Kearsley <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Footnote 10 is tantalizing. I want to know how the sense "that was
> then, this is now" *would* be rendered in Emihtazuu.
> That's a tough one. You might just rephrase it as tɛ̂ŋgí nahnáɕí lɛ́ `this isn't how things were before', or something similarly direct. There's no way to preserve the English structure there.

I wouldn't expect there to be. That's why it's interesting! The
trouble with the English "this isn't how things were before" is that,
depending on context and intonation, it could constitute either a
complaint, or an admonition, whereas "that was then, this is now" is
very clearly the latter- a response to a complaint, not a complaint
itself. Does the Emihtazuu version convey that nuance, or can it be
massaged to do so?

> How do the conjunctions work? Can they connect anything, or just
> clauses? If only clauses, how do you express conjoined noun phrases?
> How do you express disjunctions ("or" as opposed to "and")?
> Jo can connect noun phrases; everything else is only clauses. Disjunctions are done through a compound conjunction jo lɛmá  `if it isn't', which can shorten to jɛmá (which I should include with the conjunctions).

I presume, then, that jɛmá cannot connect noun phrases. If so, does
that mean any sentence involve disjunctive nouns would have to
re-phrased with multiple clauses (perhaps using pro-verbs)?

> Since it is impossible to relativize possessors, what alternative
> strategy would be used to translate things like "I sued the man whose
> dog bit me because he cut me off in traffic."? (Note that I am
> including an addition reason clause there solely to exclude a
> translation of the form "I sued the man because his dog bit me.",
> which introduces an additional semantic component missing from the
> English original; feel free to leave out any mention of moving traffic
> violations when composing an answer.)
> I don't think there ís a single-sentence way to say that. You'd have to rephrase it as something like `you know that dog that bit me? I sued his owner because he cut me off in traffic.'

That seems like the sort of thing that would be worth adding to the grammar.

> Are there anaphoric or other methods of referring to full sentences
> with multiple arguments of their own as arguments of non-speech or
> thought verbs? I.e., is there some construction like "I kicked the
> dog, and he saw that", or "I kicked the dog and he saw I did."?
> Yeah, I should mention perception verbs as another kind of verb that can take a full sentence as a complement. You can say even things like kei tahná nida eima `I like that you did that'. You can say just 'he saw me kick the dog' - nei razo sakáhná ligídá rɛhná, literally `I kicked the dog was visible to him'.

Eh, perception verbs are kind of peripheral to the problem I had in
mind. Try something like this: "The fact that I ate breakfast today is
important." Would it be possible to say something like "I had
breakfast today and that is important", or is there really no means at
all of referring to a fully-qualified clause as an argument to a verb
that doesn't happen to belong to this special class of
thought/speech/perception/whatever verbs?