Omzinesý wrote:It's a combination of two affixes. One of them is a portmanteau with two sememes that both express modality.
The first affix is what I call mood: necessative, potential (deontic), desirative and epistemic
The first category of the portmanteou is mega modality or polarity: positive, negative and irrealis
The last category is "controller": egophoric, external and internal
egophoric desirative irrealis, for example, is 'I want X to do, but X doesn't decessarily do'
interanl potential positive: 'X is able to do, and so s/he does'
external epistemic negative: 'X is known not to do'
...
1. The idea is that the real meaning is defined by the combination of the affixes.eldin raigmore wrote:Cool!Omzinesý wrote:It's a combination of two affixes. One of them is a portmanteau with two sememes that both express modality.
1. Does "deontic potential" mean "permissive" or "what one is allowed to do"?Omzinesý wrote:The first affix is what I call mood: necessitative, potential (deontic), desiderative and epistemic
1a. Are your deontic potential and your epistemic potential ("maybe") expressed the same way?
1b. Are your deontic necessitative (what one must do) and your epistemic necessitative (what must be true) also expressed the same way?
2. When you say "desiderative and epistemic", do you mean that one value of what you call your "mood affix" represents both "desiderative" (what somebody wishes) and "epistemic" (what someone knows and/or how certain they are of it)? Or do you mean that it has one value that means "desiderative" and a different one that means "epistemic"?
3. How do you express "optative" (what someone chooses)?
4. Do you distinguish at all between "alethic" and "epistemic"?
egophoric + potential is "I allow X do"
internal + potential is "X is able to do"
external + potential is "X is allowed to do"
"deontic" is just there to emphasise the that it does not mean 'can' in the epistemic sense.
1a. nope
1b. the "necessative" is deontic. All epistemic meanings are expressed with the epistemic mood.
2. four moods: necessative, potential, desirative and epistemic
3. Desirative is near to that.
4. "alethinc"? I have to look what it means.
1. three values "positive" "negative" and "irrealis"1. Is this two values, "positive" vs "negative/irrealis"? Or is it three values, "positive" vs "negative" vs "irrealis"?Omzinesý wrote:The first category of the portmanteau is mega-modality or polarity: positive, negative and irrealis
1a. Semantically one might wish to communicate four combinations; realis affirmative, realis negative, irrealis affirmative, and irrealis negative. Can you express all four, and distinguish each one from each of the others, in your conlang? If so it's possible (even naturalistic and realistic) that it can't be done using only this "mega-modality"; but can you?
1a. irrealis is kind of middle point between the two. If one wants to express 'negative irrealis' one must use analytic means.
The terminology is new, because I have never seen anything like this. If you know better, I am happy to know them, too.I assume this is three values: "egophoric" vs "external" vs "internal".Omzinesý wrote:The last category is "controller": egophoric, external and internal
What do these mean?
"Egophoric" would mean "ego-bearing" or maybe "self-bearing"; it probably relates to the speaker. Does it?
"External" and "internal"; what do they mean? What is outside what, or what is inside what?
"ego-phoric" refers to the speaker. At least, ego-phoric evidential eppears in some languages. "I were there, so I know."
"Internal refers to the subject"
"external" is either expressed by an participant in the causative case, or it can refer just to an indefinite person "one can see that" "I just is generally allowed to..."
You are right. As far as I know, deontic modality expresses the conditions of action. Whit the external controller the potentiality is created by someone else, so one is allowe dto do.I think I got that.Omzinesý wrote:egophoric desiderative irrealis, for example, is 'I want X to do, but X doesn't necessarily do'
That "potential" is not deontic. It's not about what X is allowed to do; rather it is about what X has the ability to do.Omzinesý wrote:internal potential positive: 'X is able to do, and so s/he does'
Internal would be something like "X knows that X does"I don't see why or how the internal of your second example is different from the external of your third example.Omzinesý wrote:external epistemic negative: 'X is known not to do'
...