Zompist Bboard Again

Imralu wrote: ↑Tue Nov 28, 2023 10:36 pm

Man in Space wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 11:48 pm

Imralu wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 8:11 pm Wež oož kaž aa, literally "I use my eyes | he dies in an accident caused by another" probably means "I saw him die in an accident", but could also mean "I accidentally killed him with my eyes".

How do you get that second meaning? Or does “he dies in an accident caused by another” imply it’s a cause external to the victim rather than the speaker?

Yeah, kaž contrasts with zeuh, "accidentally kill oneself", "die in an accident caused by oneself". It doesn't reference the speaker at all, only the subject or non-subject cause of the accident resulting in death. It's essentially the same distinction as "be murdered" vs "commit suicide" except with express non-intentionality.

I.e. self-inflicted mortality in which one is eligible for a potential Darwin Award.

Imralu wrote: ↑Tue Nov 28, 2023 10:36 pm English had that weird "will/shall" alteration for 1st person (which feels like prescriptivist bullshit to me, but I can also accept that it may have been based on a natural distinction)

To me the idea that will versus shall is based on person is prescriptivist bullshit, as will and shall have quite distinct meanings independent of person (e.g. "I will finish the project" versus "I shall finish the project" are quite distinct, as the former simply states something that is thought to be a fact whereas the latter indicates obligation or intention), and also note their meanings in law and requirements.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Wed Nov 29, 2023 12:48 pm

Imralu wrote: ↑Tue Nov 28, 2023 10:36 pm English had that weird "will/shall" alteration for 1st person (which feels like prescriptivist bullshit to me, but I can also accept that it may have been based on a natural distinction)

To me the idea that will versus shall is based on person is prescriptivist bullshit, as will and shall have quite distinct meanings independent of person (e.g. "I will finish the project" versus "I shall finish the project" are quite distinct, as the former simply states something that is thought to be a fact whereas the latter indicates obligation or intention), and also note their meanings in law and requirements.

Right, but the notion in question is that those distinct meanings used to be exactly the reverse, but only for the first person. I shall do it tomorrow would have been a casual statement of fact and I will do it tomorrow would have implied obligation or strong intention. But You shall do it tomorrow would have been more like a command, and You will do it tomorrow would have been a statement of fact.

My view is that this first-person alteration was in part, but not entirely, prescriptivist bullshit. In other words, it was never an absolute rule that truly described all usage--but it did reflect a tendency that was, for a time, quite common. You can read it in old novels and hear it in old movies. It arguably lingers on in set phrases like Shall we? (which means the same thing as Are we gonna go now? not Do we have to go?)

But shall is no longer a very natural part of everyday speech, so it's no surprise that any such distinction, to whatever extent it did exist (and I contend it did, though it was not universal) would be lost. No one even remembers that shall has a reduced unstressed pronunciation /ʃəl/--that's a big tell that it's no longer really in play as far as spoken language goes.

äreo wrote: ↑Wed Nov 29, 2023 3:21 pm My view is that this first-person alteration was in part, but not entirely, prescriptivist bullshit. In other words, it was never an absolute rule that truly described all usage--but it did reflect a tendency that was, for a time, quite common. You can read it in old novels and hear it in old movies. It arguably lingers on in set phrases like Shall we? (which means the same thing as Are we gonna go now? not Do we have to go?)

The key thing about Shall we?, though, is that it expresses intention, while Will we? merely expresses fact.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Wed Nov 29, 2023 5:01 pm

äreo wrote: ↑Wed Nov 29, 2023 3:21 pm My view is that this first-person alteration was in part, but not entirely, prescriptivist bullshit. In other words, it was never an absolute rule that truly described all usage--but it did reflect a tendency that was, for a time, quite common. You can read it in old novels and hear it in old movies. It arguably lingers on in set phrases like Shall we? (which means the same thing as Are we gonna go now? not Do we have to go?)

The key thing about Shall we?, though, is that it expresses intention, while Will we? merely expresses fact.

True, it may not be such a good example. But it still feels different from legalese shall.