[Lingtyp] the favorative clitic

[Christian Lehmann]

Dear Bastian,

just a short reply in the middle of what I hope will continue:
Cabecar has a desiderative clitic in addition. [subject V=DES] means 
'subject wants to V'.

Incidentally, I had commented on 'bouletic/boulomaic' and their variants 
in another article 
<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348151626_Interlinguale_grammatische_Begriffe>. 
Horrible terms from a classicist point of view. However, you  may be 
right that this kind of modality is, in fact, involved. I wonder whether 
the Japanese and Australian apprehensional categories would come under 
this modality, too.

Thanks,
Christian
----------------------------------------------------------
> Dear Christian,
> Adding to what Ellison said (with apprehensionals sometimes being 
> analyzed as a combination of epistemic possibility and negative 
> subjective evaluation of the state-of-affairs in question), I’d 
> suggest the slightly more common label
>
> /desiderative/
>
> as the clitic seems to have a function (or one if its functions) 
> somewhere in the realm of bouletic (a.k.a. boulomaic) 
> modality/attitude in the sense of „indicates[ing]  the degree of the 
> speaker’s (or someone else’s) liking or disliking of the state of 
> affairs” (Nuts 2005: 12).
>
> Nuyts, Jan. 2005. Modality: Overview and linguistic issues. In William 
> Frawley (ed.), /The expression of modality/. 1–26. Berlin: de Gruyter
>
> Hope this helps!
>
> Best,
> Bastian
>
>
>
>
>> Am 12.09.2023 um 12:03 schrieb Ellison Luk <ellisonluk at gmail.com>:
>>
>> Dear Christian,
>>
>> Functionally, this seems to be comparable to the 'apprehensional' 
>> category (found in many Australian, Austronesian, and South American 
>> languages). Instead of conveying something undesirable or 
>> regrettable, the 'favorative' seems to convey desirability or 
>> satisfaction. Apprehensional markers also often have epistemic modal 
>> functions too (uncertainty), which might also be a function of your 
>> marker, if I interpret the interrogative sentence example correctly.
>>
>> Best,
>> Ellison
>>
>> On Tue, 12 Sept 2023 at 11:04, Christian Lehmann 
>> <christian.lehmann at uni-erfurt.de> wrote:
>>
>>     Here is a Cabecar clitic with which I have been struggling for
>>     years: The mobile enclitic /pa/ attaches to almost any
>>     constituent in a clause S at almost any position and conveys
>>     something like 'S is/would be good/better/convenient/desirable'.
>>     The translation difference between 'is' and 'would be' depends on
>>     the mood of the verb of S.
>>
>>     With the indicative:
>>
>>     1.
>>
>>         I ks-á=jka=pa.
>>
>>     3 sing-pfv=atp=fav
>>
>>                 ‘Appropriately enough, he already sang.’
>>
>>     1.
>>
>>         Ká yís dä jawá kú̱na̱=pa=ba.
>>
>>     neg 1.sg cop healer n.val=fav=acp
>>
>>                 ‘I am not yet a healer (as would be desirable).’
>>
>>
>>     With the subjunctive:
>>
>>     1.
>>
>>         S’ kí̱s-ö́=pa bá kú̱ bë́rbë́na̱ !
>>
>>     1.sg wait-sbj=fav2.sg erg for.a.while
>>
>>                 ‘Please wait a moment for me !’
>>
>>     1.
>>
>>         Kë́i bak-ó̱-n-ó̱=pa !
>>
>>     neg 3 take.away-sbj-mid-sbj=fav
>>
>>                 ‘Let it not be taken away !’
>>
>>     In a subordinate clause:
>>
>>     1.
>>
>>         Ma̱kú̱ jé w-ó̱=pa kí̱=ka, bá së́-r=mi̱räbáá.
>>
>>     [2.sg erg d.med do1-sbj=favsup=lat] 2.sg feel:non-mid(ipfv)=pot
>>     tsa nice
>>
>>                 ‘Onceyou would have convenientlydonethat, you might
>>     have feltgood.’
>>
>>     In an interrogative sentence:
>>
>>     1.
>>
>>         … i te i sh-á=ká̱ ijé wä́=na̠ i juë́-n-á̱=pa jé=ra ...
>>
>>     3 erg3 say-pfv=asc[3.psface=in3 see2-mid=favd.med=tmp]
>>
>>                 ‘…they added: “Does he perhaps know?”...’ (Historia p. 8)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     The subjunctive sentences would be imperatives and jussives
>>     without /pa/ and are attenuated by it. I have never seen such a
>>     thing before; and since it is so unfamiliar, I cannot even
>>     translate it well into English. I had at first called it
>>     'optative'. There is, however, a different particle with
>>     illocutionary force which converts a subjunctive sentence into an
>>     optative sentence ('Would that S!'), where S may or may not
>>     contain /pa/.
>>
>>     I don't expect anybody to come up with an analysis of /pa/ on the
>>     basis of the above examples. My question is: Has anybody ever
>>     seen such a thing? And if so, how did you call it? I am not
>>     particularly happy with my (or rather, my coauthor Guillermo's)
>>     most recent neologism 'favorative'.
>>
>>     -- 
>>
>>     Prof. em. Dr. Christian Lehmann
>>     Rudolfstr. 4
>>     99092 Erfurt
>>     Deutschland
>>
>>     Tel.: 	+49/361/2113417
>>     E-Post: 	christianw_lehmann at arcor.de
>>     Web: 	https://www.christianlehmann.eu
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Lingtyp mailing list
>>     Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>>     https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lingtyp mailing list
>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>> https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp


-- 

Prof. em. Dr. Christian Lehmann
Rudolfstr. 4
99092 Erfurt
Deutschland

Tel.: 	+49/361/2113417
E-Post: 	christianw_lehmann at arcor.de
Web: 	https://www.christianlehmann.eu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20230912/b9c68eca/attachment.htm>