Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: And/or

Expand Messages
  • John Q
    Ithkuil uses the following affixes to deal with the various ins and outs of adjunctive and/or contrastive coordination as well as quasi-coordinative concepts:
    Message 1 of 18 , Aug 31, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Ithkuil uses the following affixes to deal with the various ins and outs of
      adjunctive and/or contrastive coordination as well as quasi-coordinative
      concepts:

      -iw/-iy in conjunction with / combined with / including X
      -ew/-ey and / also / additionally/ furthermore/ moreover/ what’s more
      -äw/-äy . . . and so forth / and so on / and all that/ and whatever else
      -öw/-öy and at the same time / and simultaneously
      -(a)w/-(a)y and [all in a series, e.g., I bought apples, (and) pears and
      grapes.]
      -üw/-üy or [potentially inclusive] = and/or = A or B or both A and B
      -ïw/ïy either . . . or [exclusive or] / or else
      -ow/-oy . . . or something else / or whatever / or whatever else
      -uw/-uy either . . . or [exclusive or in a series]
      -irr still / nevertheless / however — (despite seemingly
      inherent conflict or contradiction)
      -err besides / not just . . . but also / in addition to X… also
      -ärr even / or even / … still [e.g., thicker still]
      -örr or [= otherwise]
      -arr as opposed to / but not
      -ürr but [qualifying]
      -ïrr however / on the other hand — (simple difference in
      expected outcome, no inherent conflict)
      -orr but (rather) [= substitute]
      -urr just in case / should the need arise

      The second affix above is used with the Focus category to disambiguate a
      sentence like "Our team defeated their team, too" [i.e., is our team on a
      winning streak or is their team on a losing streak?]

      --John Q.
    • R A Brown
      Alex Fink wrote: [snip] ... That s about it, I think - at least as regards the general trend. Under _aut_, the Lewis & Short dictionary says: In general it
      Message 2 of 18 , Sep 1, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Alex Fink wrote:
        [snip]
        >
        > Anyway, there are no uncontroversial examples of natlangs
        > with the ior vs. xor distinction. Latin _aut_ vs. _vel_
        > is often cited: _aut_ is supposed to be exclusive, _vel_
        > inclusive; but I think better the story that goes _A aut
        > B_ means "A or B, it matters which", and _A vel B_ means
        > "A or B, it doesn't matter which", where the "or" in the
        > glosses doesn't care about clusivity.

        That's about it, I think - at least as regards the general
        trend.

        Under _aut_, the Lewis & Short dictionary says:
        "In general it puts in the place of a previous assertion
        another, objectively and absolutely antithetical to it,
        while _vel_ indicates that the contrast rests upon
        subjective opinion or choice, i.e. _aut_ is objective, _vel_
        subjective, or _aut_ excludes one term, _vel_ makes the two
        indifferent."

        OK - _aut_ excludes one term, but then so, normally, does
        _vel_; but in the case of _vel_ I'm indifferent as to the
        choice. If I'm going to buy a burger or a hot dog for
        myself and friend and there's plenty each available (and I
        ask him in Latin!0, I'd probably use _vel_. But if the only
        two remaining items were one burger and one hot dog, where
        in English I'd say "Do you want the burger or the hot dog?"
        then the choice has obvious implications for me as well and
        I'd use _aut_.

        Under _vel_, Lewis and Short say:
        ".. disjunctive conjunction to introduce an alternative or
        preference, or as not affecting the principal assertion."

        _vel_ is indeed derived from the root vel- ~ vol- that we
        find in the verb _volo, velle, volui_ "to wish, want". i.e.
        _vel_ had the idea "what you will".

        BUT - things are never that simple in a natlang ;)

        In treating the various different uses of _vel_, Lewis and
        Short give examples where _vel_ is used with the *same use*
        as _aut_ above; they also give examples where the
        disjunctive meaning is very weak and the conjunction
        practically means "and". Maybe that's the source of the
        assertion that _vel_ = IOR. It doesn't. It covers a range
        of meanings, mainly XOR, in fact, where the choice is not so
        important (but sometimes it is) to just plain AND.

        Lewis and Short give examples where _either....or_ is
        expressed by _aut....vel_ and others where it is _vel ....
        aut_ :)

        --
        Ray
        ==================================
        http://www.carolandray.plus.com
        ==================================
        "Ein Kopf, der auf seine eigene Kosten denkt,
        wird immer Eingriffe in die Sprache thun."
        [J.G. Hamann, 1760]
        "A mind that thinks at its own expense
        will always interfere with language".
      • Adam Walker
        In Carrajina, _aut_ lives on as _jud_ maening _or_, while _vel_ countinues as _veu_ meaning _eventhough_, _though_, _thus_, _yet_. Adam
        Message 3 of 18 , Sep 1, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          In Carrajina, _aut_ lives on as _jud_ maening _or_, while _vel_ countinues
          as _veu_ meaning _eventhough_, _though_, _thus_, _yet_.

          Adam

          On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 12:03 AM, R A Brown <ray@...> wrote:

          > Alex Fink wrote:
          > [snip]
          >
          >
          >> Anyway, there are no uncontroversial examples of natlangs
          >> with the ior vs. xor distinction. Latin _aut_ vs. _vel_
          >> is often cited: _aut_ is supposed to be exclusive, _vel_
          >> inclusive; but I think better the story that goes _A aut B_ means "A or B,
          >> it matters which", and _A vel B_ means
          >> "A or B, it doesn't matter which", where the "or" in the
          >> glosses doesn't care about clusivity.
          >>
          >
          > That's about it, I think - at least as regards the general trend.
          >
          > Under _aut_, the Lewis & Short dictionary says:
          > "In general it puts in the place of a previous assertion another,
          > objectively and absolutely antithetical to it, while _vel_ indicates that
          > the contrast rests upon subjective opinion or choice, i.e. _aut_ is
          > objective, _vel_ subjective, or _aut_ excludes one term, _vel_ makes the two
          > indifferent."
          >
          > OK - _aut_ excludes one term, but then so, normally, does _vel_; but in the
          > case of _vel_ I'm indifferent as to the choice. If I'm going to buy a
          > burger or a hot dog for myself and friend and there's plenty each available
          > (and I ask him in Latin!0, I'd probably use _vel_. But if the only two
          > remaining items were one burger and one hot dog, where in English I'd say
          > "Do you want the burger or the hot dog?" then the choice has obvious
          > implications for me as well and I'd use _aut_.
          >
          > Under _vel_, Lewis and Short say:
          > ".. disjunctive conjunction to introduce an alternative or preference, or
          > as not affecting the principal assertion."
          >
          > _vel_ is indeed derived from the root vel- ~ vol- that we find in the verb
          > _volo, velle, volui_ "to wish, want". i.e. _vel_ had the idea "what you
          > will".
          >
          > BUT - things are never that simple in a natlang ;)
          >
          > In treating the various different uses of _vel_, Lewis and Short give
          > examples where _vel_ is used with the *same use* as _aut_ above; they also
          > give examples where the disjunctive meaning is very weak and the conjunction
          > practically means "and". Maybe that's the source of the assertion that _vel_
          > = IOR. It doesn't. It covers a range of meanings, mainly XOR, in fact,
          > where the choice is not so important (but sometimes it is) to just plain
          > AND.
          >
          > Lewis and Short give examples where _either....or_ is expressed by
          > _aut....vel_ and others where it is _vel .... aut_ :)
          >
          > --
          > Ray
          > ==================================
          > http://www.carolandray.plus.com
          > ==================================
          > "Ein Kopf, der auf seine eigene Kosten denkt,
          > wird immer Eingriffe in die Sprache thun."
          > [J.G. Hamann, 1760]
          > "A mind that thinks at its own expense
          > will always interfere with language".
          >
        • Dana Nutter
          ... My main conlangs so far have usuallly made these three words. SASXSEK Deini English ka i and ba o or (exclusive, xor) kaba
          Message 4 of 18 , Sep 1, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 7:53 AM, Lars Finsen <lars.finsen@...> wrote:
            > Hi,
            > In my work as a translator I have often noticed that English and Norwegian
            > handles the and/or concepts differently. English often uses the "or" word
            > where Norwegian uses the "and" word, or the other way around.
            >
            > For example, last week I had a translation with several sentences of the
            > kind "For systems A or B, the following applies", which I translated to "For
            > A- og B-systemet gjelder følgende". That is, English seems to handle these
            > things individually, while Norwegian handles them collectively.
            >
            > But consider "Variations due to changes in factors A, B, and C", which I
            > translated to "variasjoner som skyldes endringer i A-, B- eller C-faktoren".
            > Here, the English handles the factors as a group, while idiomatic Norwegian
            > requires me to handle them independently ("faktoren" is singular, but in the
            > definite form).
            >
            > Is there some theoretical background for this phenomenon in English?
            >
            > And I'd like to hear from native speakers of other languages how they would
            > handle these expressions. How would you translate them into your conlangs?

            My main conlangs so far have usuallly made these three words.

            SASXSEK Deini English
            ka i and
            ba o or (exclusive, xor)
            kaba oi or (inclusive) "and/or"
          • Anthony Miles
            In Classical Fortunatian, the forms /bor/ [b@r] and /aut/ [ot] do exist, but I m not sure of the semantic distinction between them. My other two romconlang
            Message 5 of 18 , Sep 1, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              In Classical Fortunatian, the forms /bor/ [b@r] and /aut/ [ot] do exist, but
              I'm not sure of the semantic distinction between them. My other two
              romconlang sketches are too rough to determine how they handle this. As for
              Na'gifi Fasu'xa, I still don't know how to do multiple subject and direct
              objects, so this is well beyond its capabilities (it probably has something
              to do with parataxis).
            • Anthony Miles
              I m not sure about or , but and/with in Na gifi Fasu xa is /pataka /, the prepositional form of /pataka/ have/hold . /pu mafa pataka ti gafi pumafa
              Message 6 of 18 , Sep 8, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                I'm not sure about "or", but "and/with" in Na'gifi Fasu'xa is /pataka'/, the
                prepositional form of /pataka/ "have/hold". /pu'mafa pataka' ti'gafi pumafa'
                pu'mafa/ means "I and my brother" (the /pumafa'/ is the genitive prepositional
                construct).

                Semantic note: The preposition /pataka'/ has an equal sense, whereas the
                related participles /a'ptaka/ and /apta'ka/, "holding" and "being held", describe
                unequal relationships. Make of that what you will.
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.