From the vaults: Quantifiers and specifiers

The following post was originally written on March 13, 2021, but never published because I was so frustrated not to be able to come to grips with the problem that became very manifest as I started trying to produce example sentences. I never deleted the draft, though, because I sort of enjoyed the exasperated sarcasm into which I rapidly deteriorated. Here it is for posterity.

I think I may thankfully have solved this problem eventually, at least in theory. Actual usage recommendations are still developing via...actual usage, and I still sort of cringe everytime I need an existential verb. Truly, resolving this overlap between the existential quantifier and the indefinite article may be Koa's most vexing, longest-standing problem.

----------

Ever since a Ling department party in 2002 I've been nervous about something. I've put it off and assured myself it was okay, I think because my Indo-European intuition was so strong, but today it has officially stopped making sense and by hook or by crook we're going to have to take another inventory of our articles and determine what they actually really mean.

The areas that cause nervousness are basically where quantifiers and specifiers intersect, for example:

* What is the difference between the existential quantifier and the indefinite article -- "a book is on the table" versus "there is a book on the table?"
* What is the difference between the universal quantifier and...well, actual statements of quantity -- "cats are evil" vs "all cats are evil?"

I've tried to tackle this before, first in this specifier flowchart from 2010 and then in this revision in 2012. I'm increasingly feeling that tickle, though, that tells me that I was making some assumptions based on misunderstandings or unwarranted conflation of levels of description. I'm seeing three levels at this point that these questions interact with, and we need to keep them separate: logical quantification, the discourse stage, and other pragmatic concerns.

Some specifiers are straightforward (I hope) and we can probably safely leave them out of this discussion: ka the definite article, signifying that the referent is already on the discourse stage and recognizable to everyone taking part in the discourse; ko abstraction of the predicate; and ti/to deictic markers ("this"/"that") when used to refer to physical proximity. What we're going to have to really rigorously investigate are a, hu, po, and ti/to in discursive rather than physical function.

What is actually the difference between a and hu? Let's explore in different syntactic positions and AFF/INT/NEG.

SUBJECT
hu mala i ne masa "there's a fly on the table, an (unspecific) fly is on the table"
a mala i ne masa "there's a (certain?!) fly on the table" uh what

ai hu mala i ne masa "is there a fly on the table? is an (unspecific) fly on the table?"
ai a mala i ne masa "is there a (certain) fly on the table?" yeah that's nonsense

na hu mala i ne masa, hu mala i na ne masa "there's no fly on the table"
na a mala i ne masa "okay this is stupid"

OBJECT
Where are you going? I need to buy "a" book today. Does that book already exist in the physical universe recognizable to the speaker, as in "a certain?" Traditional Koa would give you:

ni ki ala (po) pama he leo "I want to engage in book-buying today" (this surprised me)
ni ki ala a pama he leo "I want to buy a particular book today"
ni ki ala hu pama he leo "There's a book I want to buy today"

Shouldn't this really just be:

ni ki ala pama he leo "I want to buy a (some nonspecific) book today"
ni ki ala a/hu pama he leo "I want to buy a (specific but not on the discourse stage) book today" or "there's a book I want to buy today" depending on context
ni ki ala ti pama he leo "I want to buy a certain book today that's not on the discourse stage but will potentially be relevant to subsequent discourse FYI"

I don't want to do this anymore, this is idiotic. It's really just a question of which particle we want to keep in the a/hu role and which we want to free up for other meanings.

Experiential structures

Koa has a series of verbs representing sensory, perceptual or otherwise subjective scenarios, for which the "experiencer" theta role is encoded as the subject. Experiencer marking is all over the place cross-linguistically, obviously, but this is the default syntactic strategy for experiencers in Koa on the grounds that most or all other statives share that structure.

In making this decision there was an initial challenge around how to encode the feature of volition: "see" versus "look," "hear" versus "listen," etc. I sorted much of this out in 2016 with the realization that nae as "see" could be rephrased almost synonymously as tenae "can see," whereas the progressive form manae would be understood as "looking":

ni-na-ma-nae ala ni-si-náe-ta i meno
1SG-NEG-PROG-see but 1SG-ANT-see-3SG FIN regardless
"I wasn't looking, but I saw it anyway!"

Another common usage is the passive with mo as in panae mo "look like," literally "be seen as." There are many other parallel structures among these experience verbs, some of which correspond to lexical differences in English where others are harder to translate directly. Since I've never spelled this out fully, here are the roots I've identified so far as belonging to this class and their meanings in all of these structures (omitting those usages which seem anomalous or meaningless):

nae "see"
manae "look at, watch"
vinae! "look!"
konae "vision"
náete "a glance, a look"
panae "appearance, one's 'look'"
panae mo "look like"

kulu "hear"
makulu "listen to"
vikulu! "listen!"
kokulu "hearing"
kúlute "a 'listen'"
pakulu "a sound, a noise"
pakulu mo "sound like"

olo "smell"
maolo "sniff, smell (intentionally)"
violo! "smell!"
koolo "smell, smelling"
ólote "a sniff, a smell of something"
paolo "scent, fragrance"
paolo mo "smell like"

kihe "feel (physical, tactile)"
makihe "touch, feel"
vikike! "touch! feel!"
kokihe "touch, sensation"
kíhete "a feel, a touch"
pakihe "feeling, sensation, texture"
pakihe mo "feel like (physically)"

maku "taste"
mamaku "taste, try"
vimaku! "taste! try!"
komaku "(sense of) taste"
mákute "a taste"
pamaku "flavor, taste"
pamaku mo "taste like"

tune "perceive"
matune "focus on"
vitune! "focus! pay attention!"
kotune "perception"
túnete "an occasion of focusing attention/perception on something"
patune "a perception"
patune mo "seem like"

kue "experience"
makue "invite/seek out an experience"
vikue! "(intentionally) experience!"
kokue "experience"
kúete "an experience (the act of experiencing)"
pakue "a feeling, an experience (the thing experienced)"
pakue mo "feel like (experientially)"

huo "notice"
mahuo "take note of, observe, pay attention to"
vihuo! "take note! observe, pay attention!"
kohuo "notice, attention"
húote "an observation (the act of taking note)"
pahuo "a note, an observation (the thing noticed)"

kuvi "imagine"
makuvi "imagine, picture (intentionally)"
vikuvi! "imagine! picture!"
kokuvi "imagination"
kúvite "(an occasion of) imagining, a daydream"
pakuvi "an imagining, fancy, daydream, idea (the thing imagined)"

mai "feel (emotionally, subjectively)"
mamai "hold onto, seek a feeling"
vimai! "try to feel X!"
komai "feeling emotionally"
máite "(an occasion of) feeling something"
pamai "a feeling, an emotion"
pamai mo "feel like (emotionally)"

...and to some extent, though the +volition set of meanings is kind of marginal (I guess maybe specific to lucid dreaming?):

moe "dream"
komoe "dreaming"
móete "an occasion of dreaming"
komoe "a dream (the thing dreamed)"

There is almost certainly some unavoidable ambiguity around volition in certain syntactic contexts, though I'm pretty sure that semantic or narrative context, TAM marking, and/or definitiness of arguments would resolve it in most cases...and maybe in other cases the distinction isn't really that important.

Compounds and branching direction

This is a translation of yesterday's post, which I'd been meaning to write since last December and it suddenly occurred to me I might actually be able to express in Koa. It was challenging in places and not quite as free-flowing and expressive as it would have been in English, but still it's the first-ever meta-article in Koa which feels like a milestone!

There were lots of vocabulary and usages being invented on the fly, not all of which I'm sure about: nóava "name (tr)," since I don't have a word for "express" or "mention"; pamulíkema "compound," i.e. "put-together-thing"; páama "head" and nálama "dependent," and so on. (Should "head" be étuma or something? Either way étuvike would be "matrix clause" and nálavike "subordinate clause.") I also don't yet have a word for "order," which irritatingly necessitated the circumlocution nácate "arrangement." On the other hand I'm pretty pleased with VM as the acronym for vike méama "noun phrase," to which we could also add VE = vike étema "verb phrase" and VI = vike ílama "modifier phrase." I've been slowly working on other Koa-specific linguistic vocabulary on the side which I'll eventually want to unveil; some examples are étema aivu "passive verb" (e.g. nipaloha), méama lala (oétema) "(deverbal) instance noun" (e.g. súote), and méama litu eli "definite plural noun" (e.g. ukunu).

I might mention that the problem described in this post is getting kind of galling given how many compound nouns have found their way into regular usage, with more appearing all the time. Every single time I say or write ésipai "Monday" I ask myself whether it really ought to be paiesi; my excitement at coining koláimiena "reunification" is tempered by anxiety that komienalai may be a more native structure somehow.

One thing about the head-final ordering is that it can sometimes generate worryingly long words with initial stress, which feels alien to the usual Koa cadence for long words. Nisilumutepanáeta "I wanted to make it visible," on the other hand, has nine syllables but is still natural to pronounce and clear to understand. Left-branching compounds can also end up being tricky to parse when they contain prefixes, suffixes and compound nouns: munálavikema "complementizer," grouped like [[mu[nála[vike]]]ma] "cause-subordinate-clause-thing"; or sometimes seem to need two written accents -- is that even allowed? -- like símipúhute "telephone conversation." Again, I have no answers, only vague anxiety.

A last note: it came out in the course of writing the below that the adverbial "often" translates into Koa as mouse, a discovery which caused me almost to break a rib laughing.

--

For a few months I've been worrying about the fact that we apparently have two different ways of forming compounds in Koa, without any guidance or even discussion about the fact, really. In both methods the words are written together and the dependent bears the stress (I'm creating these grammatical words as I write, so they may not be permanent), but in one strategy the dependent precedes the head (címihale "grammar, e.g. language-structure") and in the other it follows (halecimi "structure-language").

In the beginning I thought that the second type was the only one possible, in accordance with the normal ordering of dependents and heads in Koa. But later on, maybe due to a bunch of time spent with Esperanto (how do we use foreign words, anyway?) my practice changed almost entirely. I might have been thinking that there wouldn't be enough distinction between ordinary adjective phrases and compounds if dependents were to follow in the same way.

After some research -- mainly an article by Laurie Bauer (great thanks to Allison for extremely kindly getting hold of it for me as usual) from a book I unfortunately haven't been able to identify -- I learned:

* Some languages use compounding more than others; some don't use them at all (?!)
* It seems that both structures are found cross-linguistically, even in head-initial languages
* There's a small tendency for compounds to be left-branching even in languages in which NP's are right-branching
* In general the ordering of heads and dependents in compounds is the same as that of possessed and possessor nouns
* Interestingly, in languages in which noun-modifies phrases and compounds use the same ordering, there is often no structural difference between compounds and ordinary NP's!

All this seems to mean...that we're not getting any help with this decision, aggravatingly. This leaves me in some uncomfortable confusion, because it seems like I should decide something and I have no idea which I like more. It could be that both strategies will have their own uses...maybe? Or maybe I just need to make a real decision, unfortunately. Anyway, I wanted to make the problem visible, at least, even if nothing at all is clear at this point!

Pamulíkema e taho koósava

Hekei akuu tele nimaholi pekonupumekemo lua neo lakomumuo popamulíkema cile Koa, nokoohe coa e nokomova coa petá i vela moeso. Ciukemo lua hivakile uupu molike e ponálama i vakana célite (nimateke tiupu címihale henikile, laa tetai kotunacucali), ala cikakemo énasi ponálama i vakoe popáama (címihale) e cikamutu tavahala (halecimi).

Heámate nilule ko kalei lúasi mono i sitai, mavonu kanácate eco popáama e nálama cile Koa. Ala helohi taa, tetai lopólipi aika momaluna mele Esipelánito (ai motoa? Le Esperanto? Le Tóvoma? Mokea sa nuvamova poupu uto?) kakeva i simuta i aci mosai. Nilimameti ko i nacumenéote pepovike ílama eco e pamulíkema haponálama i vahala mosama.

Hala náipi kosue -- moetu apakile cile Laurie Bauer (kito suli lale Áliso pekokíita mocínino laní moeco) otusi ninasitemuimi i papaho -- niopi:

* Hucimi i vaitu popamulíkema i ene pemutu; huka i navaítutu i hetu (?!)
* Patune moko uhale lua i hovapaluta nemunu kacímipo kanui, i vela necimi páaenasi
* I mekeva píkuki ve popamulíkema i vaósava lavase i vela necimi ve povike méama i vaósava laaka
* Molaca kanácate kapáama e kanálama nepamulíkema i sama ve kaoma e kapaoma
* Mukino, necimi ve mekanácate sama pevike ílama e pamulíkema, mouse i hononéote pepamulíkema e VM (=vike méama) eco!

Tipoa i lisema...veninamasaa cóapi ápute metihólote, momuhulu. Toa i iátini nekosopu sune, lokopatune mokopono konicuholo hua e ninailo i hetu kaniaima i taa. Tetai ko ukemo lua i cumeítute oma, neo...aité? Au tetai koietau koniioholo i eso, nipaho. Meno, nisilumutepanae kahákate movaha, i vela ha naka hetu i kica hetitia!

Yes and no

I've traditionally given ia and na as the Koa translations of "yes" and "no," but the situation is actually quite a bit more complex with some fairly neat opportunities for nuance. Na is a decent all-purpose "no," being the general negative particle, but ia is actually a veridical often used in verum focus: as such its true meaning is "definitely, certainly, absolutely." There's a negative corollary ianá that means "definitely not, absolutely not," and there are many other modal particles that can be used analogously for different shades of meaning.

For example, ku classifies the information within its scope as already known, whether it really factually is or the speaker deems that it should be so. The following sentence might be uttered if the speaker had just returned from out of town, and been asked if they'd done something, or heard something, that implied more time at home than they had yet had:

ni-ku-lai he-ele i mono
1SG-KNOWN-return TIME-yesterday FIN only
"I mean, I only came back yesterday, after all"

As an interjection, then, ku means something like "obviously," "clearly" or "of course," and the negative form kuná would be "obviously not," "of course not," "clearly not."

For those particles that do not have veridical or evidential force -- that is, other than ia, li, pu, vu -- the positive form can also be combined with ia for emphasis, thus kuiá "clearly yes," "well of course it is." All of these particles are modular and can be combined freely in whatever ways their meanings would allow: so iaté "yes, that very well may be," "it is definitely true that that is possible" vs teiá "yes, perhaps," "it's possible that that's true." Or even stacked with other modals, like kuté, kuteiá "yes, that may indeed be possible."

Below are the particles that can be used as interjections and their approximate English meanings. One note for the following examples: "I" in the translations is only illustrative, and could be replaced with any other referent relevant to the discourse (e.g. oená could also mean "no, she shouldn't" in the appropriate context).

ea "yes, let's"
     eaná "no, let's not"

hoiá "yes, actually, counter to expectations" (ho alone indicates surprise)
     honá "no, actually not, counter to expectations"

ia "yes, definitely"
     ianá "no, definitely not"

io "that's right, there it is, aha!, bingo, there we go"
     ioná "no, no way, no longer, no more of that"

ki "yes, I have to; yes, it must be"
     kiná "no, I mustn't; no, it must not be"
     nakí "no, I don't have to; no, there's no need"

ku "yes, obviously; yes, of course"
     kuná "no, obviously not, of course not"

li "yes, I suppose so, might be, probably"
     liná "no, I suppose not, probably not"

lu "yes, I want to"
     luná "no, count me out"
     nalú "no, I don't want to"

oe "yes, I should"
     oená "no, I shouldn't"

pu "yes, apparently; yes, so I hear"
     puná "no, apparently not; no, so I hear"

te "yes, I can; yes, maybe"
     tená "no, maybe not"
     naté "no, I can't; no, it can't be"

vi "yes, do it! yes, let it be so!"
     navi, naví "no, don't do it! ojalá que no"

vu "yeah, I guess so"
     vuná "no, I guess not"

I'm really pretty pleased with the amount of subtlety and precision that Koa has developed in this area sort of by accident, just by virtue of its system of modal particles. I know I keep saying this but it's been continually fascinating to keep discovering the language's emergent complexity as it's come into greater and greater use this year.