Print

Print


On Sun, 3 Sep 2017 14:39:40 +0100, Raymond Brown <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>On 02/09/2017 19:38, J S Jones wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Sep 2017 10:26:10 -0600, Logan Kearsley wrote:
>>
>>> English typically relies on definiteness in a predicate nominal:
>>>
>>> "He is a doctor." (Proper Inclusion- he is a member of the
>>> category of "doctors".)
>>>
>>> "He is the doctor." (Equation- he and the doctor are the same
>>> person.)
>>>
>[snip]
>>>
>>> So, do you worry about distinguishing those cases, and if so, how
>>> do you do it?
>>>
>
>I guess the simple abswer is that it doesn't worry me overmuch.
>
>> One way is to use 2 distinct copulas. Another is to use specific vs
>> non-specific agreement.
>>
>
>If using distinct copulas or specific vs non-specific is is mandatory
>then, surely, you may just as well have articles.  None of the natlangs
>I know that lack articles - Latin, Russian, Chinese - resort to such
>strategems.  Basically AFAIK (in the case of Latin, that is quite far)
>they normally rely on context.
>
Well, the Inuit language IIRC uses the specific vs non-specific method, at least, although I don't know if they use it for copular situations.

>If it is necessary to make inclusion or equation explicit, then the
>languages can do so.  Latin tpically used _quidam_ after the noun to
>make it indefinite if required; the spoken language obviously used
>_unus_ as is attested by the indefinite article of the modern Romance
>languages.  From what I've seen of Chinese _yī_ (one) + appropriate
>classifie seems not infrequently to be used simply to mean "a, an".
>'Tis a long while since I did any Russian, si I'll keep quiet about
>that.  :)
>
>Definiteness in Latin was shown by using some appropriate demonstrative.
>e.g. _ille medicus est_ = "he is _the_ doctor"; or, maybe, _iste medicus
>est_ = "he is the doctor (you've been speaking about, asking about)", or
>whatever demonstartive is appropriate in the context.
>
>As for my conlangs:
>
>*TAKE* is ancient Greek without inflexion, so it inherits the Greek
>definite article το (to) - so problem solved. :)
>
>*Outidic* is a fictional 17th century Grrek-based auxlang inspired by
>the real 17th century Latin-based auxlang of the French Jesuit priest,
>Philippe Labbé.  Labbé's language lacked any articles, nor did he
>discuss this lack.  But he wrote his book "Grammatica linguae
>universalis missionum et commerciorum" (1663) in Latin and expected his
>readers to be familiar with Latin and cleaerly saw no problem in a
>language lacking articles or any other _mandatory_ distinction between
>inclusion and equation.
>
>Outidic likewise has no definite or indefinite article.  I write:
>{quote}
>It will have been noticed that there are no definite or indefinite
>articles in Outidic. Dr Outis did at first consider retaining a definite
>article because ancient Greek had it; but he was concerned that
>different languages do not use their definite article in the same way,
>for example, that the use of the definite article is rather different in
>English, in French and in Ancient Greek.
>He was also aware that not only Latin but Russian, Turkish and some
>other languages managed with no definite or indefinite article and he,
>therefore, decided that in a language to facilitate communication
>between statesmen, merchants and scholar of different languages it would
>be simpler to dispense with articles entirely.
>{unquote}
>http://www.carolandray.plus.com/Outis/Nouns.html#articles
>
>I don't imagine a 17th DrNorman Outis feeling the need for expanding
>further than did Philippe Labbé feel any need to discuss lack of
>definite & indefinite articles.  The language would adopt similar
>strategies as Latin.
>
>*Britainese* is a western Romance conlang still being slowly developed.
>  But it will obviously have definite & indefinite articles.
>
>*Piashi* (aka Bax) has been abandoned.  But I think it would have
>behaved rather like Outidic (and Labbé's "Universal language of missions
>and commerce", i.e. leave things to context, but use similar strategies
>to Latin if an inclusion or equation needs to be made explicit.
>
>Ray