One of the highlights of the recent Iron ChIF: Non-Human Language Device Battle was, to me, the discussion of different languages and linguistic features. I find linguistics to be a very interesting field of study, so I hope to spark more conversation about it, whether it’s breakthroughs in the translation of Sumerian dog jokes or suggestions for constructing languages.
I’ll start: It turns out that many languages have separate conjunctions for joining noun phrases, as opposed to joining clauses[1].
Source: The Language Construction Kit, by Mark Rosenfelder, pg. 81 ↩︎
In English, if you ask a question in the negative and someone replies with just “yes” or “no”, it can be quite confusing. Many languages, however, avoid this by having three or even four particles. French, for instance, has “oui”, the affirmative “yes”, “si”, which is used to contradict a negative statement or question, and “non”, which either denies an affirmative or agrees with a negative. Early Modern English had “yea” and “nay” to agree with or deny a positively phrased question, and “yes” and “no” to contradict or agree with a negatively phrased question[1].
To clarify, anyone is free to post on this thread. I know there are several people here with far more knowledge of linguistics than I have.
Speaking of conjunctions, Latin has three very common ones: et (“and”), vel (“inclusive or”), and aut (“exclusive or”). That is, aut is used for mutually exclusive options, while vel is used for options that can be combined: “both” is a valid answer to a vel question, but not to an aut question. That’s why aut is used in the Latin version of “all or nothing”, aut Caesar aut nihil (“either emperor or nothing”).
It also has enclitic versions of “and” and “inclusive or”, which glom onto a previous word or phrase like 's does in English: -que and -ve respectively. Hence senatus populus-que Romanus: “the senate and the Roman populace”.
Back in high school, someone I remember #defined these to mean &, |, ^, &&, and || (respectively) in order to Latinize their C code.
Colonel Mustard: Wadsworth, am I right in thinking there’s nobody else in this house?
Wadsworth: Um… no.
Colonel Mustard: Then there is someone else in this house?
Wadsworth: Sorry, I said “no” meaning “yes.”
Colonel Mustard: “No” meaning “yes?” Look, I want a straight answer, is there someone else, or isn’t there, yes, or no?
Wadsworth: No.
Colonel Mustard: No there is, or no there isn’t?
Wadsworth: Yes.
Mrs. White: [shatters glass] PLEASE!
Colonel Mustard: [both insistent] Well, there is still some confusion as to whether or not there is anybody else in this house!
Wadsworth: I told you, there isn’t.
Colonel Mustard: There isn’t any confusion, or there isn’t anybody else?
Wadsworth: Either! Or both.
Colonel Mustard: Just give me a clear answer!
Wadsworth: Certainly!
[clears throat]
Wadsworth: What was the question?
Colonel Mustard: [shouting] Is there anybody else in this house?
All: [shouting] No!