Béu : Chapter 5 : Questions

Welcome to béu

..... Combining clauses

..

... With respect to time

..

huʒia = to smoke

koʔua = to cough

solbe = to drink

caume = medicine

..

... XXX

..

Grammar provides ways to make the stream of words coming out a speaker's mouth nice and smooth ... no lumpy bits. Well the smoothness comes from the rules (you can think of the rules as traffic rules, and affixes and particles as the traffic signs), and getting rid of the lumps entails dropping the elements that are already known, that are already accessible in the mind of the hearer. This section is about getting rid of these elements : both arguments and person-tense markers.

..

Now we have already come across the particle lé which links nouns together. béu doesn't use the same particle for linking clauses together though. It uses the particle è. English allows the dropping of an S or A argument in a sentence when this argument has already been established as the topic. béu is exactly the same : it allows the dropping of an S or A argument. However when you have a clause with the S argument dropped, this clause is not introduced by è, it is introduced by the particle sé. For example ...

A) bawa turi = The men came

B) bawas bwuri gala = The men saw some women

C) bawa turi sé bwuri gala = The men came and saw some women.

D) bawas bwuri gala è turi = The men saw some women and then came.

You can see that C) flows a lot better than A) juxtaposed with B). And D) flows a lot better than B) juxtaposed with A).

This seems a good place to list all the particles that can join clauses.

sé/è : these have nothing to say about the relative timing of clause A (before the particle) and clause B (after the particle).

sé dù/è dù : these mean that action B follows on immediately from action A.

sé kyude/è kyude : these mean that action B follows action A but not necessarily immediate. Sometimes sé è are dropped.

kyugo : this means that action A and B happen at the same time. Usually we have different actors in the two clauses, but not always.

Another particle used for combining clauses is tè. This is exactly equivalent to the English "but". tè is occasionally also used before nouns. However before nouns it is more usual to use ???

There are also some phrases with more "sound.weight" that have the exact same meaning as tè.

..

..... The three types of Verb

..

Some concepts are naturally intransitive. Like "to shave". Well at least in béu it is very unusual to shave another.

Some concepts are naturally transitive. Like "to hit". It is worth remarking on when somebody hits themselves.

And there are also some concepts that appear in both manifestations. For example ... "turn", "spread", "rise/raise"

These three types of concept are represented in beu by three different types of verb.

V1) té = to come ... this is a intransitive verb

(Always accompanied by a naked noun)

V2) timpa = to hit ... this is a transitive verb

(Always accompanied by an s-marked noun and a^* naked noun)

^*Although sometimes the naked noun can be dropped for lack of interest. For example ...

jenes solbori = Jane drank (something)

V3) kwèu = to turn

Now this sometimes behaves like V1 and sometimes like V2.

..

.. V1 Derivations

..

There are 5 deriuvation processes shown below ...

First from doika => doikaya This involves infixing ay before the final vowel.

Secondly from doika => doikana and doikaya => doikayana.

This involves deleting the final vowel and adding ana.

Thirdly from doika => doikala and doikaya => doikayala.

This involves deleting the second part of the final vowel if it is a diphthong, and then adding la.

Fourthly from doikaya => doikaiwai.

This involves deleting the final vowel and y and adding iwai.

Fifthly from doikaya => doikaiwau.

This involves deleting the final vowel and y and adding iwau.

..

	doikaiwai		doikaiwau
	"that which has been made to walk" (A/N)		"that which must be made to walk" (A/N)
doikayana	<============	doikaya	============>	doikayala
"the one that makes walk" (N)		"to make to walk" (V1)		"causing to walk" (A)
		^
		|
		|
doikana	<============	doika	============>	doikala
"walker" (N)		"to walk" (V2)		"walking" (A)

Note that we have 8 word forms in total.

..

.. V2 Derivations

..

There are 5 deriuvation processes shown below ...

First from kludau => kludawau This involves infixing aw before the final vowel.

Secondly from kludau => kludana and kludawau => kludawana.

This involves deleting the final vowel and adding ana.

Thirdly from kludau => kludala and kludawau => kludawala.

This involves deleting the second part of the final vowel if it is a diphthong, and then adding la.

Fourthly from kludau => kludwai.

This involves deleting the final vowel and adding wai.

Fifthly from kludau => kludwau.

This involves deleting the final vowel and adding wau.

..

kludawana	<============	kludawau	============>	kludawala
"computer memory" (N)		"to be written" (V2)		"being written" (A)
		^
		|
		|
kludana	<============	kludau	============>	kludala
"writer" (N)		"to write" (V1)		"writing" (A)
	kludwai		kludwau
	"written" (A/N)		"which must be written" (A/N)

..

kludwai is the passive past participle, and kludwau is the passive future participle.

..

Note that we have 8 word forms in total.

..

.. V3 Derivations

..

haikana	<============	haika	============>	haikala
"breaker" (N)		"to break" (V3a)		"breaking" (A)
	haikwai		haikwau
	"broken" (A/N)		"that which must be broken" (A/N)

..

Note ... haikwai could very well have broken by itself. There is no connotation that an outside agent was responsible. The same with haikwau.

..

heukana	<============	heuka	============>	heukala
"breaker" (N)		"to break" (V3b)		"breaking" (A)

..

There are 4 derivational processes involved with V3a and 2 derivational processes involved with V3b. They have been already been explained in the sections on V1 and V2.

Note that we have 8 word forms in total.

kó = to see

kowa = to be seen

The subject of the active clause, can be included in the passive clause as an afterthought if required. hí is a normal noun meaning "source". However it also acts as a particle (prefix) which introduces the agent in a passive clause.

poʔau = to cook

..

When the final consonant is w y h or ʔ the passive is formed by suffixing -wa

In monosyllabic words, it is formed by suffixing -wa.

Note ... when wa is added to a word ending in au or eu, the final u is deleted.

Also note ... these operations can make consonant clusters which are not allowed in the base words. For example, in a root word -mpw- would not be allowed ( Chapter 1, Consonant clusters, Word medial)

..

... Valency ... 1 => 2

..

Now all verbs that can take an ergative argument can undergo the 2=>1 transformation.

There also exists in béu a 1=>2 transformation. However this transformation can only be applied to a handful of verbs. Namely ...

ʔoime	to be happy, happyness	ʔoimora	he is happy	ʔoimye	to make happy	ʔoimyana	pleasant
heuno	to be sad/sadness	heunora	she's sad	heunyo	to make sad	heunyana	depressing
taudu	to be annoyed	taudora	he is annoyed	tauju	to annoy	taujana	annoying
swú	to be scared, fear	swora	she is afraid	swuya	to scare	swuyana	frightening, scary
canti	to be angry, anger	cantora	he is angry	canci	to make angry	cancana	really annoying
yodi	to be horny, lust	yodora	she is horny	yoji	to make horny	yojana	sexy, hot
gái	to ache, pain	gayora	he hurts	gaya	to hurt (something)	gayana	painful *
gwibe	to be ashamed/shame/shyness	gwibora	she is ashamed/shy	gwibye	to embarrass	gwibyana	embarrassing
doimoi	to be anxious, anxiety	doimora	he is anxious	doimyoi	to cause anxiety, to make anxious	doimyana	worrying
ʔica	to be jealous, jealousy	ʔicora	she is jealous	ʔicaya	to make jealous	ʔicayana	causing jealousy

ʔoimor would mean "he is happy by nature". All the above words take this sense when the "a" of the present tense is dropped.

The above words are all about internal feelings.

The third column gives a transitive infinitive (derived from the column two entry by infixing a -y- before the final vowel).

The fourth column gives an adjective of the transitive verb (derived from column three entry by affixing a -ana ... the active participle).

When the final consonant is ʔ j c w or h the causative is formed by suffixing -ya.

Also when the verb is a monosyllable, the causative is formed by suffixing -ya.

Note ... when ya is added to a word ending in ai or oi, the final i is deleted.

Note ... when y is infixed behind t and d : ty => c and dy => j

..

Normally in béu, to make a nominally intransitive verb transitive, it doesn't need the infixing of -y. All it needs is the appearance of an ergative argument. For example ...

doika = to walk

doikor = he walk

ós doikor the pulp mill = he runs the pulp mill

doikyana = management ???

..

^*You would describe a gallstone as gayana. However you would describe your leg as gaila (well provided you didn't have a chronic condition with your leg)

..

Concatenation of the valency changing derivations ... 1 => 2 => 1 and 2 => 1 => 2

..

ʔoime

= to be happy

ʔoimye

= to make happy

ʔoimyewa

= "to be made to be happy" or, more simply "to be made happy

..

fàu

= to know

fa??

= to tell

fa ??

=

..

timpa

= to hit

timpawa

= to be hit

timpawaya

= to cause to be hit

..

Semantically timpa is direct action (from agent to patient). Whereas timpawaya is indirect, possibly involving some third party between the agent and the patient and/or allowing some time to pass, between resolving on the action and the action being done unto the patient.

..

..... Word building

..

Many words in béu are constructed from amalgamating two basic words. The constructed word is non-basic semantically ... maybe one of the concepts needed for a particular field of study.

..

In béu when 2 nouns are come together the second noun qualifies the first. For example ...

toili nandau (literally "book" "word") ... the thing being talk about is "book" and "word" is an attribute of "book".

Now the person who first thought of the idea of compiling a list of words along with their meaning would have called this idea toili nandau.

However over the years as the concept toili nandau became more and more common, toili nandau would have morphed into nandəli.

Often when this process happens the resulting construction has a narrower meaning than the original two word phrase.

---

There are 4 steps in this word building process ...

1) Swap positions : toili nandau => nandau toili

2) Delete syllable : nandau toili => nandau li

3) Vowel becomes schwa : nandau li => nandə li

4) Merge the components : nandə li => nandəli

..

---

The above example is for 2 non-monosyllabic words. In the vast majority of constructed words the contributing words are polysyllables.

The process is slightly different when a contributing word is a monosyllabic. First we look at the case when the main word is a monosyllable ...

wé deuta (literally "manner soldier")

1) Swap positions : wé deuta => *deuta wé ........ there is no step 2

3) Vowel becomes schwa : *deuta wé => *deutɘ wé

4) Merge the components : *deutə wé => deutəwe

..

---

And the case when the attribute is a monosyllable ...

nandau sài (literally "word colour")

1) Swap positions : *sài nandau

2) Delete syllable : *sài dau .......................................... there is no step 3

4) Merge the components : *sài dau => saidau

..

---

And the case when the attribute ends in a consonant ...

megau peugan ... "body of knowledge" "society"

1) Swap positions : *peugan megau

2) Delete syllable : *peugan gau

3) Delete the coda and neutralize the vowel :*peugan gau => *peugə gau

4) Merge the components :*peugə gau => peugəgau

..

---

And the case when the main word has a double consonant before the end vowel ...

kanfai gozo ... merchant of fruit

1) Swap positions : *gozo kanfai

2) Delete syllable : *gozo fai ............................. Note kan is deletes, not just ka

3) Vowel before the final consonant becomes schwa :*gozo fai => *gozə fai

4) Merge the components :*gozə fai => gozəfai

..

---

And here are a few examples to demonstrate the semantic range that this technique can encompass ...

laŋku = shadow, reflection

miaka = echo, response, effect

Which produce miakəka meaning "subtle influence" or "to subtly influence"

..

---

sword.spear => weaponry ... shield.helmet => armour, protection ... knife.fork => cuttlery ... table.chair => furniture

There are no cases where both contributing words are monosyllables.

Note ...

1) the schwa is represented by a sturdy dot.

2) the consonant before the schwa takes its final form

3) the consonant after the schwa takes its medial form

When spelling words out, this dot is pronounced as jía ... meaning "link".

Notice that when you hear nandəli, deutəwe or peugəgau you know that they are a non-basic words (because of the schwa).

Also when you see nandəli or deutəwe, peugəgau written you know that they are non-basic words (because of the dot).

However when you come across hipe it is not immediately obvious that it's a non-basic word.

This method of word building is only used for nouns.

..

..... Bicycles, Insects and Spiders

..

wèu = vehicle, wagon

weuvia = a bicycle

weubia = a tricycle

Perhaps can be thought of derived from an expression something like "wagon two-wheels-having" or "wagon double-wheel-having" with a lot of erosion.

Notice that the "item" that is numbered (i.e. wheel) is completely dropped ... probably not something that would evolve naturally.

There are not many words in this category.

jodoʒia^* = spider

jodolia = insect

jodogia = quadraped

jodovia = biped

nodebia = a three-way intersection ... usually referring to road intersections.

nodegia = a four-way intersection

nodedia = a five-way intersection

nodelia = a six-way intersection ... and you can continue up of course.

^*jodo = animal ... from jode = to move

..

..... Ambitransitive verbs

..

In English there are some verbs that sometimes take one participant and sometimes involve two participants. For example "knit" or "turn". In English you know if the verb is appearing in its intransitive form if an extra argument turns up after the verb (that is ... an O argument has turned up) ... S and A appear the same in English.

Similarly in béu there are some verbs that sometimes take one participant and sometimes take two participants. For example mekeu "knit" or kwèu "turn". In béu you know if the verb is appearing in its intransitive form if an extra argument turns up with the ergative marker -s attached (that is ... an A argument has turned up) ... S and O appear the same in béu.

Note on nomenclature

Dixon calls "knit"/mekeu an ambitransitive verb of type S=A or an [S=A ambitransitive verb].

I call "knit"/mekeu an ambitransitibe verb of type "one unaffected argument" or an [unaffected ambitransitive verb].

For "knit" the preverb argument^* is either S or A .... For mekeu the unaffected argument is either S or A.

Dixon calls "turn"/kwèu is an ambitransitive verb of the type S=O or an [S=O ambitransitive verb].

I call "turn"/kwèu an ambitransitibe verb of type "one affected argument" or an [affected ambitransitive verb].

For "turn" the affected argument is either S or O .... For kwèu the naked argument^** (i.e. no -s) is either S or O.

^*It is also the unaffected argument.

^**It is also the affected argument.

..

..... Live verbs

helga = life, helgai = alive, helgais = finite verb, helkas = a clause ( helkas <= helgaiskas ), swevan = a sentence

Lets take the solbe to explain these different forms. solbe is a maŋga and it would be found in the dictionary ... and if it was an English/ béu dictionary ... the translation "to drink" would lie alongside it.

An example of one of its (many) r.forms is solbori = He/she/it drank ....... so the r.form corresponds to a verb in indicative mood.

An example of one of its (handful of) s.forms is gò solban = I wish I could drink ....... corresponds to a sort of subjunctive mood.

The u.form (only one u.form per word) is solbu = drink ! ....................... so the u.form corresponds to a verb in imperative mood.

The i.form (only one i.form per word) is solbi ... this is the fornm used in verb chains and will be explained later.

We will go into a lot more detail about all these forms in the next chapter.

..

..

... Totality ... collectively or individually

..

Sometimes we want to talk about all members of the category "noun" acting (or being acted upon) COLLECTIVELY.

For this we use the particle ú before the plural of the noun. For example ...

moltai = a/the doctor

moltai.a = doctors

ú moltai = all doctors

Note ... the same word, when appended to a noun, means "the whole" or "entire". For example ...

falaja ú = all morning

..

The opposite of the above, is when all members of the category "noun" is acting (or is being acted upon) INDIVIDUALLY.

By doubling the noun (or the first part of a noun) you give what can be called a distributive meaning.

Some examples ...

kòi = day

kòi kòi = every day

moltai = doctor

moltai moltai = each doctor

falaja = afternoon

fa-falaja = every afternoon

Notice that for words over two syllables, only the first syllable is prefixed.

..

The "word-hood" of these duplications is murky. When the word in its entirety is dublicated, they are written as to seperate words. When a word is only partially duplicated I write it as a hyphenated word. In the béu script a special symbol is used to indicate duplication.

Single syllable words retain their tone when duplicated ... which indicates two separate words. However you also get phonological processes that are usually only word internal. That is to say, these structures show "sandhi".

For example ...

yildos yildos (every morning) would be pronounced / jildoʃ jildos /.

là bàu bàu = "on every man" .... indicates that bàu bàu is multi-word as the pilana is in its stand alone form.

Anyway ... these constructions are never written out in full. Instead a special symbol is placed above the simple noun. This symbol can vary a bit, depending on the font being used : it can vary from a lower half circle bisected by a vertical stroke to a shape that looks a bit like the Arabic shaddah.

For example ...

..

It some contexts, semantically, it does not matter whether the individual or the collective form is used. When this is the case, the default choice is "individual" structure. ú tends to be used with tangible nouns more, it is hardly ever used with nouns denoting periods of time.

Note (as in English) the plural verb form is used for the collective structure, the singular verb form for the individual structure. For example ...

ú bàu súr = all men are

bàu bàu sór = every man is

NOTE TO MYSELF

---

Every language has a word corresponding to "every" (or "each", same same) and a word corresponding to "all". "all" emphasises the unity of the action (especially when the NP is S or A) while "every" emphasises the separateness of the actions. Now it is not always necessary to make this distinction (perhaps in most cases). It seems to me, that in that case, English uses "every" as the default case (the Scandinavian languages use "all" as the default ??? ). In béu the default is "all" ù.

The meaning of this word (in English anyway) seems particularly prone to picking up other elements (for the sake of emphasis) with a corresponding lost of power for the basic word when it occurs alone. (From Etymonline EVERY = early 13c., contraction of Old English æfre ælc "each of a group," literally "ever each" (Chaucer's everich), from each with ever added for emphasis. The word still is felt to want emphasis; as in Modern English every last ..., every single ..., etc.)----

TO THINK ABOUT

---

?à ?à bàu hù ?ís = any man that you want ( ?ís ... "you would want" ???? )

?ài ?ài bàu hù ?ís = any men that you want

?ài bàu = some men

..

..... lé .... lú .... lò

..

Earlier we have seen that when 2 nouns come together the second one qualifies the first.

However this is only true when the words have no pilana affixed to them. If you have two contiguous nouns suffixed by the same pilana then they are both considered to contribute equally to the sentence roll specified. For example ...

jonos jenes solbur moze = "John and Jane drink water"

In the absence of an affixed pilana, to show that two nouns contribute equally to a sentence (instead of the second one qualifying the first) the particle lé should be placed between them. For example ...

jenes solbori moʒi lé ʔazwo = "Jane drank water and milk"

jonos jenes bwuri hói sadu lé léu ʔusʔa = John and Jane saw two elephants and three giraffes.

[ Compare the above two examples to á jono jene solbori moze = Jane's John drank water ... i.e. The John that is in a relationship with Jane, drank water ]

This word is that is never written out in full but has its own symbol. See below ...

..

Note ... in the béu script, the "o" before "r" is always dropped. This is just a sort of short hand thing.

..

The following construction is also found.

lé moze lé ʔazwo = "both water and milk"

The above construction emphasizes the "linking" word lé

Another linking word is lú meaning "or".

jenes blor solbe moze lú ʔazwo = "Jane can drink water or milk"

The following construction is also found.

lú moze lú ʔazwo = "either water or milk"

The above construction emphasizes the "linking" word lú

There is another word that corresponds to the English "or". This is ʔala and it is a question word. For example ...

ʔís moze ʔala ʔazwo = "would you want water or milk"

And the answer expected of would be either "water" or "milk"

Say you were asking somebody if they were thirsty and you had only water or milk to give them. Then you would say ... ʔís moze lú ʔazwo ʔai@

The expected answer to the above question would be either "yes" or "no" (as is always the case when you have @ ( @ is pronouced a bit like ʔai but has contour tone instead of a normal high tone, it has a special symbol and I am using "@" to represent this symbol in my transliteration)).

Now if the question was "would you want water or milk, or both" you should say ...

ʔís mose ʔala ʔazwo ʔala leume

But sometimes (either because of the laziness of the speaker or because the likelyhood was not considered) ... ʔís moze ʔala ʔazwo ʔala leume comes out as ʔís moʒi ʔala ʔazwo.

So ʔís leume (I would like both) is an acceptable answer to the question ʔís moze ʔala ʔazwo

If the questioner would like to rule out the answer ʔís leume he would use the construction .

ʔís ʔala moze ʔala ʔazwo

So ʔala before the first item does exactly the same as lé or lú before the first item : it emphasizes the linking word.

..

... "no"

..

In béu, jù corresponds to "no".

"neither water nor milk" would be translated as jù moʒi jù ʔazwo

..

... lists

..

So far we have restricted ourselves to two items. We can summarize the system for two items as below ...

..

lé	giving	2	items
lú	giving	1	item	.....	ʔala	asking for	1	item
jù	giving	0	items

..

However we can join up more than two items. When more than two items are joined by the above 4 linking words, it is considered good style to have the linking word before the first item and the last item, before each item (except the first and the last) should be a slight pause (I call it a gap ... see "punctuation and page layout" earlier on this page).

For example ...

jenes bwori lé ifa sadu _ uba ʔusʔa _ ega moŋgo lé oda gaifai falaja dí = Jane saw two elephants, three giraffes, four gibbons and five flamengos this morning.

..

... other

..

lò = other

lòi = others

kyulo = again

welo = otherwise

..

... Correlatives

..

..

uda	everywhere	uku	always	ubu	everybody	uvan	everything
juda	nowhere	juku	never	jubu	nobody	juvan	nothing
ida	anywhere	iku	anytime	ibu	anybody	ivan	anything
eda	somewhere	eku	sometime	ebu	somebody	evan	something
enda	some places	eŋku	some times	embu	some people	enfan	somethings

..

The above 20 correlatives all have a special symbols (ignore the blue and red squares). A further 4 of these special symbols are shown below ....

..

..

The short-hand forms (symbols) are always used.

The columns are related to the words ... dàn = place ... kyùs = time/occasion ... glabu = person ... fanyo = thing

ubu can mean "each person" and "all the people". If they act together uwe can be added. If they act individually bajawe' can be added.

..

... Summary of non-alphabet non-numerical symbols

..

..

... Set Phrases

..

If you meet somebody who you have not met for sometime you say fò fales sàu gipi "may peace be in you" (may peace fill you ??... fò í fales FILL jè

If you meet some people who you have not met for sometime you say fò fales sàu jepi "may peace be in you" (may peace fill you ??... fò í fales FILL jè

On taking your leave of somebody who you have not met for sometime you say fò nela sàu gimau "may the blue sky be above you"

On taking your leave of somebody who you have not met for sometime you say fò nela sàu jemau "may the blue sky be above you"

If you pass somebody in the street or you meet your workmates for the first time in the morning fales is sufficient. If you say fò fales sàu gipi it typically means that you are going to have a ten minute (at least) chat.

..

..

There are some set phrases ... these are not a million miles from interjections

Also there two phrases { "j" and "k" } which could be considered interjections. They have the intonation pattern of a single word.

(A) yuajiswe.iʃʃ which expresses consternation and/or grief. In about 30% of cases it is shortened to swe.iʃʃ only.

It means ... (say "iʃʃ" for us)

(B) hambətunmazore which expresses great joy. In about 70% of cases it is shortened to hambətun only.

It means ... (the gates to heaven have opened)

(C) And finally when somebody is telling a story or giving detailed instructions, you might say plirai at suitable intervals. This is simply a contraction of plìr ʔai? ... "do you follow ?"

(D) ... OK, we are scrapping the bottom of the barrel here. Not an exclamation in béu but maybe an exclamation in another language ... hù nén.

It expresses sudden consternation/dismay, equivalent to ... WHAT !!

(E) kè kè = "sorry" or "excuse me" ... Related to the word kelpa meaning "to apologize".

(F) sè sè = "thank you" ... Related to the word senda meaning "to thank".

..

... More on the noun phrase

..

In section 2.7 we analyzed the the different components that can go into seŋko kaza or the noun phrase if you will. Here we will go into it in a bit more detail. It will be seen that there is a bit of "internal structure" ... a bit of complexity that is not obvious upon first blush.

..

.. Sets and subsets

..

Nearly every seŋko occurs in multitudes. OK, there are a few counter examples, such as kòi "sun" but for the most part they occur in multitudes. When we talk about any plurality of these nouns it is possible to change the scope of the set under discussion ... it as if we can zoom in and zoom out and this ability to "zoom" is defined by grammar (what else).

Let as take the noun moltai "doctor" to demonstrate this. Below ... represented by the orange area is all the doctors in the world (and also presumable the Universe*).

*This "zooming" idea is not fully air-tight, there is a bit of fuzzyness about it ... hence the inclusion of "presumably".

..

The above is as far as we can zoom out. Call the total orange area the "u* set". This scope is appropriate for generic pronouncements. Such as ...

moltai.a súr jini = "doctors are clever"

* u for universal.

..

OK ... now lets zoom in a bit. To zoom in we need to take in or give out some narrative. So now we hear the following ....

Next week British junior doctors will withhold many services in protest against the long hour expected of them

OK ... after hearing that ... and if the NP "these doctors" moltai.a dí is mentioned and commented on it becomes fixed in the mind of all the interlocators.

moltai.a dí is represented by the orange area in the Venn diagram below.

OK ... lets hear another bit of narrative and change the "set" of doctors under consideration again. The narrative is ...

Much to the disgruntlement of the senior doctors who will have a hard week ahead of them making up for the short fall.

OK ... after hearing that ... and if the NP "those doctors*" moltai.a dè is mentioned and commented on it becomes fixed in the mind of all the interlocators.

moltai.a dè is represented by the orange area in the Venn diagram below.

OK ... after hearing that, the NP "those doctors*" moltai.a dè is represented by the orange area in the Venn diagram below.

* This is presuming that the NP moltai.a dí was actually talked about after the first narrative. If not ... then the NP moltai.a dí would be used to refer to the senior doctors. So it is like the particles dí and dè are letting us keep track of two "sets" of doctors at the same time. That is ... the NP's moltai.a dí and moltai.a dè have been set up in the minds of all interlocators to refer to two different sets. The second NP ( moltai.a dè ) only exists as a sort of contradistinction to the initial NP moltai.a dí .

OK ... this is as far as we can go with this example. I believe if you add the set "senior" doctors to the set "junior" doctors you have a set identical to the "set" doctors (However I could be wrong about this)

..

Lets change the example to take this idea further. Let us take bawa "men" for our noun. OK assume some narrative was given, and then bawa dí was mentioned to cement it into everybody's mind.

Then more narrative was given (defining a further subset) and bawa dé was mentioned to cement it into everybody's mind. A further NP can be used to refer to all bawa outside the first two sets. This NP is bawa lò "other men"

Actually bawa lò is usually used just one ... the set referred to as bawa lò are hardly ever kept in anybody's mind for more than a few seconds. In actual fact the first two terms don't usually persist long in a discourse either. We are continually zooming in ... zooming out ... changing our perspective.

..

.. The extended NP

..

When we were talking about how the NP was built up ( chapter 2.7 ) we mentioned the "numerative slot" that comes just before the head. We said that in this slot we can have either a "numerative" or a "selective". In this section we will discuss how these two classes of words interact with the singularity/plurality of the head noun. Also we will introduce a construction called "the extended NP" which gives a "partitive" meaning.

..

1	jù moltai dí...	no doctor here	moltai.a dí làu jù...	none of these doctors
2	ʔà moltai dí...	one doctor here	moltai.a dí làu ʔà...	one of these doctors
3	hói moltai dí...	two doctors here	moltai.a dí làu hói...	two of these doctors
4	léu moltai dí...	three doctors here	moltai.a dí làu léu...	three of these doctors
5	iyo moltai dí...	a few doctors here	moltai.a dí làu iyo...	few of these doctors
6 ...	euca moltai dí...	seven doctors here	moltai.a dí làu euca...	seven of these doctors
7	hài moltai dí...	many doctors here	moltai.a dí làu hài...	many of these doctors
8	ú moltai dí...	all the doctors here	moltai.a dí làu ú...	"all of the doctors here" or "every one of the doctors here"

..

In the table above the RHS has a "partitive" meaning. For example ... euca moltai dí means that we are talking about "seven doctors" and they are "here". But moltai.a dí làu euca means, we are talking about "seven out of a (significantly) larger number of doctors here". The RHS expressions I call an "extended NP's" ... [ NP + làu + numerative = extended NP ]

làu has been mention before in Chapter 2.12.1 ... it is a particle and it serves a number of functions*

* These different functions are not totally unrelated to each other ... they "impinge" on each other ... just as particles in natural language do.

To use an extended NP is to "zoom in". It is to narrow the scope of the items we are focusing on (as discussed in the previous section).

..

..

TWO RULES ...

A) For non-extended NP ... in any numerative before the head, then the head is SINGULAR.

B) For extended NP ... the head is PLURAL.

..

But what about the "selectives". What about ín and èn ? Listing the four possibilities below ...

..

9 ) ín moltai dí = any doctor here

10) ín moltai.a dí = any doctors here

11) èn moltai dí = some doctor here

12) èn moltai.a dí = some doctors here

..

It can be seen that following a "selective" ... the head can can be either SINGULAR or PLURAL

Now how can we interpret a sentence ... such as ... "any two doctors here" ?

Well the rules state that only one word is allowed in the numerative slot ... so ... *ín hói moltai dí or *hói ín moltai dí are not allowed.

However we can use extended NP's. For example ...

..

9	ín moltai dí	any doctor here	=>	[ empty due to Rule B ]
10	ín moltai.a dí *	any doctors here	=>	ín moltai.a dí làu hói	any two doctors here
11	èn moltai dí	some doctor here	=>	[ empty due to Rule B ]
12	èn moltai.a dí	some doctors here	=>	èn moltai.a dí làu hói	two doctors here **

..

* ... ín moltai.a dí exists, however it is a very rare beast. By far the most common use of ín is with a singular head. But in certain situations you have a situation where it is known that a PLURALITY is needed. For example "to lift up a long narrow table". So in this situation ín moltai.a dí could be used ( "any doctors here can lift the table" ... just an example). However in most situations where it is known that a plurality is needed ... it is know exactly HOW MANY are needed. In the above example TWO ... hence you would hear ín moltai.a dí làu hói more often than hearing ín moltai.a dí

COMMON .... ín moltai dí >>> ín moltai.a dí làu X (where X is any numerative) >>> ín moltai.a dí ... UNCOMMON

..

** You don't know which two ... bit we are defining them now ... henceforth we shall refer to them as nù.

..

The particle nò can also occur in the tail of an extended NP. For example ...

moltai.a dí làu nò = "several of these doctors"

In this case ... nò can be looked on as indicating plurality neutrally ... without any connotations of HIGH MAGNITUDE as hài ... or LOW MAGNITUDE as iyo.

Note that nò now has 3 uses ... it is a noun "number" ... it is a plural marker for most monosyllable nouns ... and now this use. Note that it is not a numerative (or a selective either for that matter).

..

moltai.a dí làu ʔà lú more = "one or more of these doctors" ??????????????

..

Note ... ʔà moltai dí means pretty much the same as èn moltai dí ... one a selective, one a numerative.

In béu, èn is preferred over ʔà to code indefinite [ ??? go into indefiniteness after this section ??? ]

ʔà moltai dí could mean "the one man here" but ʔà/"one" is superfluous in both béu and English (unless you were to appand a relative clause)

..

Two other numeratives that we haven't mentioned yet are tontu "the majority"/"most" and tonji "the minority".

ton = bit/part/section ... tontu <= ton jutu ... tonji <= ton tiji ... toŋko = to seperate ???

..

The distributive can occur in the tail of an extended NP. For example ...

moltai.a dí làu ò ò ... = You see the doctors here ... well everyone of them ...

[ Of course if "the doctors here" was on the top of every ones mind ... then only ò ò would be expressed ]

OK ... I have explain all the above using the determiner dí. But it is exactly the same pattern with a different determiner or no determiner at all.

I have explain all the above using a multi-syllable head. But the same pattern holds for mono-syllable heads ... regular and irregular. For example you could change wèu "vehicle" or "car" for moltai and nò wèu for moltai.a in the above explanation and everything would hold. Or bàu for moltai and bawa for moltai.a.

Also pronouns follow the above pattern. But note ... "those two*" in English is hói nù "two us" in béu ... "you three" is léu jè ... "us four" (including you) is ega wìa ... "us five" (excluding you) is oda yùa ... and so on.

"five of them" being nù làu oda of couse, following the exact same pattern that a normal noun takes for partitiveness.

á hói yùa doikuarua í london = "the two of us will walk to london" OR "us two will walk to london" ... [ I guess there would be a tendency to drop yùa??? ]

á yùa làu hói doikuarua í london = two of us will walk to london ... [tendency to drop yùa??? ]

* I guess English is a bit irregular with the 3rd person plural pronoun. This would be "they two" if it patterned the same as the other pronouns.

---

( write about partitive in Finnish ) ... ( write about the other uses of làu ) ... ( revisit the DISTRIBUTIVE )

WHAT ABOUT .... enough of the men .... too many of the men ... above 100 of the men ... more of the men

all others => ú lòs

some others => nò lòs

---

any doctor => ín moltai

any doctor here = any of these doctors => ín moltai dí

any of the doctors here => ín moltai.a dí

..

ʔà ʃì = it ... nò ʃì = them (inanimate)

..

1	ʔà ʃì nái	which one
2	nò ʃì nái	which ones
3	léu ʃì nái	which two
4	léus nái	which two

..

.. Definiteness

..

In English if the definite article "the" comes before a noun, it means that the noun is specific to both the speaker and the spoken to.

Also in English if the indefinite article "a" comes before a noun, it means that the noun is non-specific to both the speaker and the spoken to.

..

IMPORTANT ... [ And at this point I would like to say that I consider "definite" to be the same as "specific" to be the same as "referential". I actually like to use the term "known". I am always careful to always specify "known to who". So "definite" = "specific" = "referential" = "known" ... and a noun "X" designated by any of these terms can be identified as one particular "X" out of all "X" in existance.

Also I consider "indefinite" to be the same as "non-specific" to be the same as not referential. I actually like to use the term "unknown". I am always careful to always specify "unknown to who" So "indefinite" = "non-specific" = "not referential" = "unknown" ... and a noun "X" designated by any of these terms can not be identified as one particular "X" out of all "X" in existance. ]

..

Before I discuss how béu handles definiteness I would like to digress a little. Originally I tried using like 1st person specific / 2nd person non-specific and 1st person non-specific / 2nd person non-specific etc. etc. to express my ideas. But I soon realized that by using such terms I wasn't helping matters at all and I decided to use a new terminology. I like to compare me introducing this new terminology and the introduction of modern algebraic notation. Algebra existed for a long time with very little progress being made : all through the Greek Age and the Roman age and the Middle Ages. It was only when an efficient notation was devised that people could started to manipulate the different terms and progress was made. I am going to attempt to do the same for the definite/indefinite dichotomy.

I considered that a noun can be either of three states : "known", "unknown" or "known-ness indeterminate" to three protagonists : "the speaker", "spoken to" or "a third party". That gives a total of 27 states (3 x 3 x 3). Of these 27 states, 3 are illogical which leave us with 24 states. Of these 24 logical states, 16 are just over fussy, they specify definiteness too specifically to be useful. So that left me with 8 states (of definite/indefiniteness) which I believe can be profitably considered.

So now let me introduce my notation ...

..

The term for every state will begin with a capital "S" (maybe meaning "state" or "situation" or "in the situation" ... it doesn't really matter). Then there will follow 2 or 3 values.

The first value is "1" if the item (noun under consideration) is known to the 1st person (i.e. the speaker), "0" if not.

The second value is "1" if the item is known to the 2nd person (i.e. the spoken to), "0" if not. If the speaker does not know if the "spoken to" can identify the item, the value is "X" (unspecified).

The third value is blank if no third person is involved, "1" if the item is known to a 3rd person, "0" if not. If the speaker does not know if the "3rd person" can identify the item, the value is "X" (unspecified).

So ... in the sentence "She wants to marry the Norwegian", we can say Norwegian is defined [S 1 1 1] ... pronounced ... ɛs wən wən wən.

In the sentence "during my trip to Budapest I met this really nice girl", we can say "girl" is defined [S 1 0] ... pronounced ... ɛs wən zɪro.

In the sentence "Do you know that/the guy that got drunk last night ?", we can say "guy" is defined [S 1 X] ... pronounced ... ɛs wən ɛks.

[ Just to re-iterate ... in my notation a "1" means that Z can be identified as one particular Z out of all Zs that exist. A "0" means that Z can not be identified as one particular Z out of all Z that exist. If the "1" or "0" is in the initial slot, we are looking into the mind of the speaker. If the "1" or "0" is in the next slot, we are looking into the mind of the hearer. ]

OK ... we have the notation. Now let us consider my 8 states one by one.

..

(A) [S 1 1] .... this one is easy. known to both speaker and hearer, part of the body of knowledge that they share. I consider (A) to be "stable"

(B) [S 0 0] ... this one is also easy. The item is non-specific to both speaker and hearer. (B) is "stable" also.

The next 4 situations represent a mismatch between the knowledge that the first person has and that the second person has. Now assuming that the two protagonists are from the same family or tribe : that they are friends or colleagues (the usual situation) they would probably like the information to spread to the other person.

(C) [S 1 0] ... This one is my favorite. I consider it pretty unstable ... humans are a gregarious lot and like to share information. In English there are two particles used to tag (C) items ... "a" and "this".

When physically introducing a new item to a person it is common to use "this". For example "come and look at this colorful little insect". Well of course "this" core meaning is/was for drawing the hearers attention to something near the speaker. The hearer typically being further away from the object. Right away you get connotations of ... "seen better by the speaker" => "understood better by the speaker" => perhaps "known only by the speaker" and hence in modern day English "this" is used for introducing an unseen [S 1 0] object. And just as when you introduce a visible object with "this", when you introduce a distant object with "this", the expectation is that you are going to talk a bit about the object  : to change the state from (C) => (A) .

If you heard from an acquaintance "during my trip to Budapest I met this really nice girl" you would expect to hear quite a bit about her. Whereas if you heard "during my trip to Budapest I met a really nice girl" there would be no such expectations. Maybe the latter sentence was a reply to you saying "all hungarian girls are unfriendly to foreigners" ... "during my trip to Budapest I met a really nice girl" is just your acquaintance rebutting your assertion.

So I would say, (C), when tagged with "this", is likely to change into (A) but when tagged with "a", is more likely to stay an (C) state. However these are just tendencies, not rules. There is nothing wrong with introducing an [S 1 0] state with "this" and then saying nothing more about it, and there is nothing wrong with introducing an [S 1 0] state with "a" and then expanding on it.

I consider (C) tagged by "this" as "unstable". I consider (C) tagged by "a" as "stable".

..

..

OK ... we have covered the first three situations. The remaining 3 situations are quite different. They all engender questions*. So instead of the objects being tagged with "the"/"a"/"this", they are sought. Sought with the question words "who"/"what"/"which".

• Well they engender questions only if they are deemed significant, if they are considered insignificant (only part of the background of the message) they will continue to be referred as indefinite.

(D) [S 1 X] ... Pretty unstable. The speaker will want to ascertain if the hearer can identify the object that he wants to discuss. So he ask question to that effect. If the hearer replies in the affirmitive then immediately the situation changes :

             ([S 1 X]  => [S 1 1]).  If the hearer replies in the negative, the speaker will, in all probability, enlighten him. A two stage process leading to the same result  : ([S 1 X]  =>  [S 1 0]  =>  [S 1 1])

NB .... where as in (C) the speaker will use "this" if he intends to talk more about a certain object. In (D) the speaker might use "that" in a question to ascertain if the situation is S 1 1 or S 1 0 *. For example "do you remember that girl that was really freaking out at her boyfriend last night" **. In this case "girl" is [S 1 1] but maybe she is not that prominent in the hearers memory. The reason for "Do you remember that girl that was really freaking out at her boyfriend last night" is to raise awareness of the girl in the hearer's mind ... to make her a solid [S 1 1] (as opposed to a [S 1 0.5] or a [S 1 0.3] ..... or even [S 1 X] if the hearers attention was wondering the night before).

• I find it pretty neat how the usage of "that" in (D) mirrors the usage of "this" in (C).

• • This is a good time to point out that we are not talking digital here ... more analogue ... more a spectrum of values than two discrete values. But of course there is always an attraction in considering a situation as either black or white ... it makes it so much more simple.

(E) [S 0 1] ... Along with (C) the most unstable. If you don't know something and your mate does ... well, you will want that information.

(F) [S 0 X] ... Unstable. How the situation changes mirrors (D). For example ... the speaker knows that Jane had been raped a few days ago in the town. So, of course, he knows a human male agent was involved. But he doesn't know who. Assume he is visited by his brother from the town. The question will be either "who raped Jane" or "do you know who raped Jane". That is either a content question or a polarity question. In this case we have ...

"who raped Jane" "I don't know" [S 0 X] => [S 0 0] "who raped Jane" "Mad Hugo" [S 0 X] => [S 1 1]

"do you know who raped Jane" "Mad Hugo" [S 0 X] => [S 1 1] "do you know who raped Jane" "no" [S 0 X] => [S 0 0] "do you know who raped Jane" "yes" "well who" (annoyed voice) [S 0 X] => [S 0 1] => [S 1 1] ..... Maybe this dialogue shouldn't be included. To answer "yes" in this situation is abnormal.

Notation Stability Comment Mode(s) of change

(A) [S 1 1] stable the noun tagged with "the" (B) [S 0 0] stable the noun tagged with "a"

(C) [S 1 0] stable (with "a") the noun tagged with "a" [S 1 0] unstable (with "this") the noun tagged with "this" : portends a xfer of info. => [S 1 1]

(D) [S 1 X] unstable (on the whole) engenders a polarity question => [S 1 1] => [S 0 1] => [S 1 1]

(E) [S 0 1] unstable engenders a content question => [S 1 1]

(F) [S 0 X] unstable engenders a question ... if a content question ... => [S 1 1] => [S 0 0]

engenders a question ... if a polarity question ... => [S 1 1] => [S 0 0] (=> [S 0 1] => [S 1 1])

Earlier I proposed considering how well a third party knew the object under discussion. My initial system was very complicated *. On second thoughts the full system I was thinking about is untenable.

* I was going to include all of [S 1 1 1] , [S 0 0 1] , [S 1 0 1] , [S 1 X 1] , [S 0 X 1] , [S 0 1 1] , [S 1 1 0] , [S 0 0 0] , [S 1 0 0] , [S 1 X 0] , [S 0 X 0] , [S 0 1 0] , [S 1 1 X] , [S 0 0 X] , [S 1 0 X] , [S 1 X X] , [S 0 1 X] ... definitely overkill.

However I would like to keep two of these ...

(G) [S 0 0 1]

(H) [S 0 0 0]

The third person I am talking about, could be anybody. If one person can identify the object under discussion it is obviously real.

If nobody can identify the object under discussion it is not (necessarily) real or at least not real at this point in time.

The sentence "she wants to marry a Norwegian"** can be given an [S 0 0 0] interpretation and an [S 0 0 1] interpretation.

** I find it a bit strange that English has no way to differentiate between (G) and (H). If "she wants to marry any norwegian" was grammatical this differentiaion would be made. However I find it a bit unfelicitous. The string "she wants to marry a norwegian ... ANY norwegian" I find felicitous ... strange.

So that is my analysis of English using the new notation.

..

..

In the section on word order we said that when the person being spoken to can identify X as one particular X ... then X will come before the verb, where X is any of the A O or S arguments.

However ... the above leaves undefined, whether the person speaking can identify X. This can be made explicit in béu by adding either the particle èm or the participle glu.ia.

..

bàu doikora = The man is walking .... known to the person being spoken to : known to the person speaking. ................................................................................... S 1 1

doikora bàu = A man is walking .... unknown to the person being spoken to : known-ness to the person speaking is not defined. ................................................... S X 0

doikora èm bàu = Some man is walking .... unknown to the person being spoken to : unknown to the person speaking. .................................................................. S 0 0

doikora èm bàu glu.ia = Some man is walking .... unknown to the person being spoken to : unknown to the person speaking : known to a third party. ................. S 0 0 1

doikora bàu glu.ai = A man is walking .... unknown to the person being spoken to : known to the person speakin ............................................................................ S 1 0

So to summarise ...

1) If noun comes before the verb => S 1 1

2) If noun comes after the verb => S X 0

3) If èm comes before the noun => S 0 0

4) If glu.ia comes after the noun, either => S 1 0 or S 0 0 1

This distinction is also made in certain natural languages. For example with nouns in Samoan ...

o sa fafine = a woman

o le fafine = a woman ……. unknown to you but known to me

Or between these two indefinite pronouns in Latin ...

aliquis = somebody

quidam = somebody ……. unknown to you but known to me

[ Note ... the argument qualified by èm or glu.ia invariably come after the verb. Also, while it is possible to imagine some scenario where an argument is known to the person being spoken to but unknown to the person speaking, in reality this very very rarely happens and I know of no natural language that makes this distinction. ]

..

One interesting point .....

---

Take the sentence ... "She wants to marry a Norwegian"

How do we show the definiteness of the Norwegian in relation to the subject. That is ... does she have a certain Norwegian in mind or does she want to marry any Norwegian.

In English ... when you hear this sentence ... you will nearly always know from the context, which of the two meanings is meant.

"any" or "that she knows" could be added to make the distinction explicit within the sentence itself.

---

Some thoughts on definiteness

---

In my first post the other day I suggested 24 possible degrees of specificness when considered from the view point of 1) the speaker 2) the hearer 3) a third party (if in existence).

In my second post I suggested that it might be advantageous to analyse the indefinite/definite system of natlangs using my 24-way system.

Well I thought I should follow my own suggestion and in the last 48 hours I have been doing exactly that for English. Namely ... I have analysed the uses of the particles "the" and "a" in the English language. Also I have looked into one use of the word "this" and "that". I mention "any" in passing.

To recap ... ORIGINALLY I said that logically you could gave the specificity of a noun in a 24-way system (or we can say a noun can exist in 24 different situations). Namely ...

The noun in question can be either specific or non-specific to the speaker. (2 choices)

The speaker can consider the hearer to know the noun in question specifically, to not know the noun in question specifically, or the speaker can be ignorant about how the listener knows the noun in question (3 choices)

A third person could exist or not exist, if they exist, the speaker can consider this third person to know the noun in question specifically, to not know the noun in question specifically, or the speaker can be ignorant about how this third person knows the noun in question. (4 choices).

Actually I have had second thoughts about 24 possible degrees of specificness and have REDUCED it to a 8-way system.

At the moment I am reading INDEFINITE PRONOUNS by MARTIN HASPELMATH. An interesting book. He defines 9 "situations" (page 64 if you have the book handy).

I notice that what he calls (1) "specific known" = S 1 0

What he calls (2) "specific unknown" = S 0 0 1

What he calls (3) "irrealis non-specific" = S 0 0 0

Now he has (8) "comparative" and (9) "free choice ... I think I could include one or both of these, quite easily into my system. I am not sure what I would call them. For now I will just say S ???

I can draw a little implicational map for my system ...

S 1 1 ......... S 1 0 ......... S 0 0 1 ....... S 0 0 0 ..... S  ???

Specificity decreases as you go to the right

..

... Index

1. Introduction to Béu
2. Béu : Chapter 1 : The Sounds
3. Béu : Chapter 2 : The Noun
4. Béu : Chapter 3 : The Verb
5. Béu : Chapter 4 : Adjective
6. Béu : Chapter 5 : Questions
7. Béu : Chapter 6 : Derivations
8. Béu : Chapter 7 : Way of Life 1
9. Béu : Chapter 8 : Way of life 2
10. Béu : Chapter 9 : Word Building
11. Béu : Chapter 10 : Gerund Phrase
12. Béu : Discarded Stuff
13. A statistical explanation for the counter-factual/past-tense conflation in conditional sentences