|
B: |
a. |
ove1
ta2
le3 |
|
|
yes1,
(I) will3
go2
|
|
|
|
|
*b.
|
ove1
ta2
le3
mo-e4 |
| |
|
yes1,
(I) will3
not4
go 2 |
|
|
|
|
*c. |
mo-e1
ta2
le3 |
|
|
no1,
(I) will3
go2
|
|
|
|
|
d.
|
mo-e1
ta2
le3
mo-e4 |
|
|
no1
, (I) will3
not4
go2
|
|
negative
|
| 305A: |
|
izho1
ta2
le3
mo4
ha5 |
| |
|
will3
(you) not4
go2
today1
?5
|
| |
|
|
| B:
|
*a. |
ove1
ai2
ta3
le4
|
| |
|
yes1,
I2
will4
(go)3
|
| |
|
|
| |
b.
|
ove1
ai2
ta3
le4
mo-e5
|
| |
|
yes1,
I2
will4
not5
go3
|
| |
|
|
| |
c.
|
mo-e1
ai2
ta3
le4
|
| |
|
no1,
I2
will4
go3
|
| |
|
|
| |
d.
|
mo-e1
ai2
ta3
le4
mo-e5
|
| |
|
no1,
I2
will4
not5
go3
|
| |
|
|
|
Information-Confirming |
-do |
affirmative
|
| 306
|
A: |
izho1
do2
|
today1,
isn’t it ?2 |
| |
|
|
|
| B:
|
a. |
ove1
izho-e2
|
yes1
, today2
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
*
b. |
ove1
izho-e2
mo-e3
|
yes1
, not3
today2 |
| |
|
|
|
| |
*
c. |
mo-e1
izho-e2
|
no1
, today2
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
d. |
mo-e
1
izho2
mo-e3
|
no1
, not3
today 2 |
| |
|
|
|
|
negative
|
| 307
|
A: |
izho1
mo2
-do3
|
|
| |
|
not2
today1
, is it ?3 |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| B: |
*a. |
ove1
izho-e2
|
yes1
, today2
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
b. |
ove1
izho2
mo-e3
|
yes1
, not3
today2
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
c. |
mo-e1
izho-e2
|
no1
, today2
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
d. |
mo-e1
izho2
mo-e3
|
no1
, not3
today2
|
|
Noticeably,
whenever there is an expectation underlying
the speaker’s negated verbal stimulus-whether
it is information-seeking, -confirming or
seeking -confirming-Mao Naga allows as verbal
response
|
| 308 |
ove1
shu i2
mo-e4 |
| |
yes1,
it (is) not3
(a) holiday2
|
| |
|
| |
mo-e1
shui-e2 |
| |
no1,
it (is) (a) holiday2
|
|
The above examples are paradigmatic of all
such question-answer interactions in which
the predicate parts of the answers seem
to be in apparent conflict with the sentence-initial
free forms of affirmation and negation viz.
ove ‘yes’ and mo-e ‘no’.
The free forms of affirmation and negation
are comments on the proposition underlying
the verbal stimulus and the rest of the
response is the speaker’s own description
of the actual state of affairs. And the
speaker’s response accords with what is
considered to be inside the proposition
and what is considered to be outside. Thus
all permutations of apparently contradictory
responses stand explained :
|
izho1 shutti2 mo3-o4
|
|
|
Another representation could be
|
|
izho1 shui2
mo3-e4 |
|
((q4 (Neg3 (izho1 shui2)))
((q4 (neg3 (today2is
holiday2))) |
Responses 1 and 2 answer the innermost or
positive proposition while responses 3 and
4 answer the proposition which includes
Neg
|
