Phone game: TV

[Ivan A Derzhanski <cbmvax!uunet!COGSCI.ED.AC.UK!iad>]

>  Date:        Tue, 30 Jun 1992 17:39:46 -0400
>  From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <shoulson@EDU.COLUMBIA.CTR>
>
>  >Date:         Mon, 29 Jun 1992 18:19:11 BST
>  >From: CJ FINE <C.J.Fine%BRADFORD.AC.UK@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
>
>  >Ivan comments on the Phone Game:
>
>  >> No interjection can change the meaning of the sentence _I am a member_
>  >> to `I am not a member' or `I want to be a member'.  And attitudinals
>  >> are just that, interjections.  They show your evaluation of the fact
>  >> reported, but don't alter the fact that the fact is reported.
>
>  >I agree entirely. [I think I have not followed this in the past, but I
>  >endorse Ivan's opinion and intend to follow the precept henceforward.
>  >"ko na tavla .e'anai", not "ko .e'anai tavla", for "don't speak".]
>
>  Hmmm.  For the most part, makes sense, but I'm a little unclear on the fine
>  points.  What would {ko tavla .e'anai} mean?

Nothing that you would be likely to say.  But.

>  Can .e'anai only be used with negatives?

In imperative sentences, yes.

>  What about {ko na tavla .e'a}?

Nothing that you would be likely to say.  (The attitudinal is only
attached to {tavla}, the {na} is outside its scope.)

But, as I said in my response to Bob, if you want some attitudinals to
negate the claim made by the rest of the sentence, make a complete
list of them, so that I, who have never thought of it in this way,
shall know which ones they are.  I mean, if you assert something,
you'll be asserting it with {.oi} as with {.oinai}, with {.ui} as with
{.uinai}.  Why should you be negating it with {.e'anai}?

>  Waaah, everyone's ganging up on me, just 'cause I'm wrong... :-)

Not everyone, just Colin and I, and we have to support one another.  :-)

>  Actually, I still don't think we really *must* have the causal link.  The
>  English doesn't have it, nor does it have to be seen as implied.  "So long
>  as you haven't started sitting up straight (during the time before you
>  start doing so), you are forbidden from watching TV."  Doesn't imply that
>  you'll be permitted to watch afterwards, not necessarily.

But you had made the telly watching the main predicate of the clause,
and the sitting up was a temporal adjunct.  On the other hand, I don't
know - I reckon the clausal link wouldn't have been lost if you had
said {do na catlu le se tivni}.  As it is, it could read `You'll watch
the telly until you sit up straight' - imagine telly watching as a
punishment, not exactly implausible, we're told - but then the
prohibitive attitudinal spoils it again.  Damn.

Ivan