zipcpi: scalar modifiers: Difference between revisions
Spheniscine (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Spheniscine (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
Note that though attitudinals use NAI/CAI as well, they do not follow this system, but have their own defined scales; in particular, {nai} tends to more often act as a polar negator rather than a denial negator with them. | Note that though attitudinals use NAI/CAI as well, they do not follow this system, but have their own defined scales; in particular, {nai} tends to more often act as a polar negator rather than a denial negator with them. | ||
Problem: Well, the obvious conclusion right now is that subjective | Problem: Well, the obvious conclusion right now is that subjective {PAva'e} is currently the most semantically flexible scalar modifier system, and I don't feel like filling the ten empty spots on this table right now. Unfortunately, it does not have the grammatical flexibility of CAI (It's hard to attach {PAva'e} to sumtcita, for instance). I propose {xi'e} (selma'o XI) for this purpose; {broda xi'eso'u} = {so'uva'ei broda} = {broda ru'e} = {rei'e broda}, e.g. | ||
Revision as of 09:15, 22 June 2015
This table describes a plan to have a system of scalar modifiers for selbri and sumtcita, to replace or provide an alternative for common usage of {mutce}, {milxe} etc. tanru.
Experimental cmavo added by me has a single asterisk; experimental cmavo added by others has a double asterisk.
Note: {va'e} may also be substituted with {va'ei**}; difference is that {PAva'e} acts as a selbri, while {PAva'ei} acts as a tense/sumtcita (tagged sumti, if present, indicates the scale or subjective frame of reference)
| Description | Gloss | NAhE | NAI/CAI | PAva'e | selbri |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| superlative negator | "least possible" | ? | ? | rone'e**va'e | tolrai (+cumki?) |
| polar negator | "opposite of" | to'e | ne'e** | ni'uva'e | dukti |
| denial negator | "not" / "other than" | na'e | nai | nova'e? / no'ai*va'e | natfe |
| liminal negator | "half-X, half-to'e-X" | no'e | cu'i | nova'e? / no'e'u*va'e | norkai / nutli |
| scalar affirmative | "is" / "indeed is" | je'a | ja'ai | su'ova'e / ma'uva'e | jetnu |
| scalar abator | "slightly" / "not very" | rei'e* | ru'e | so'uva'e | milxe |
| scalar normative | "averagely" | noi'e* | na'oi** | no'ova'e | cnano |
| scalar intensifier | "very" | sai'e* | sai | so'iva'e | mutce |
| strong scalar intensifier | "extremely" | cai'e* | cai | so'isaiva'e / so'icaiva'e | tcetce |
| scalar superlative | "most possible" | ? | ? | rova'e | traji (+cumki?) |
| scalar deficience | "not enough" / "too little" | ? | ? | mo'ava'e | toldu'e |
| scalar sufficience | "enough" | ? | ? | rauva'e | banzu |
| scalar excess | "too much" | ? | ? | du'eva'e | tcetce |
| scalar question | "how very?" | pai'e*‡ | pei'a*† | xova'e | - |
‡ Already defined as {je'ai}; but somehow it doesn't seem like a question-word to me.
† Initially suggested by la ctefa'o as an attitudinal intensity question, but not added. May also be used for that purpose.
Note that though attitudinals use NAI/CAI as well, they do not follow this system, but have their own defined scales; in particular, {nai} tends to more often act as a polar negator rather than a denial negator with them.
Problem: Well, the obvious conclusion right now is that subjective {PAva'e} is currently the most semantically flexible scalar modifier system, and I don't feel like filling the ten empty spots on this table right now. Unfortunately, it does not have the grammatical flexibility of CAI (It's hard to attach {PAva'e} to sumtcita, for instance). I propose {xi'e} (selma'o XI) for this purpose; {broda xi'eso'u} = {so'uva'ei broda} = {broda ru'e} = {rei'e broda}, e.g.