Re: bradrn’s scratchpad
Posted: Sat Jul 25, 2026 3:59 pm
Focus particles
This post focusses (ha, ha, ha) on the following five particles [revised from the nine there used to be]:
I call these ‘focus particles’ because that’s one of their more common uses, but as we’ll see they’re used for quite a few other purposes. I’ve already outlined the syntax of these constructions, so let’s skip that and go straight on to the semantics.
I’ve previously described the use of ni in verbless clauses, in which it’s used for presentational or existential constructions specifying a new referent. (In fact, in discourse ni is the standard method of introducing new referents, and especially new topics.) In verbal clauses it can be used as an existential too, but such sentences can also be purely focal, highlighting an argument without it necessarily being new in any way. Thus, this example from the linked post:
The function of nub may be summarised as ‘contrastive focus’, as in this example:
Se bwenses, eŋe nub bmawenses.
[se.bwenˌses | eˈŋe.nub̚.bma.wenˌses]
s-te b-w·en·ses, eŋe nub b-ma-w·en·ses
ACC-this 1s-like, that FOC 1s-NEG-like
This one I like, but that I don’t.
We can see that nub is used when there is a contrast between one NP and another, whether the other referent is explicit (as in this example) or implicit in the discourse. (Note in the translation how English uses preposed NPs similarly.) Aside from this, its semantics are mostly similar to ni, though it is not nearly as common in existentials as ni is. In certain constructions nub also has some more specialised uses, outlined below.
The particle ner (note the usual realisation [neʒ]) could be called an ‘additive’ particle. In some sentences it can be translated by English ‘also’ or ‘too’:
Arnim rmoʼ tosiwales, baner nonsiwales.
[aɾˌnim.ʒmoʔ.to.si.waˈles | ˈba.neʒ non.si.waˌles]
arnim r-moʼ to-si-wal·es, ba-ner non-si-wal·es
Arnim ACC-village DEF.SG-PFV-go, 1s-FOC there.ANA-PFV-go
Arnim went to the village, and I went there too.
A similar example is this post from the Conlang Fluency Thread:
Rakrampigin ner Nuraʼr togiwawespim.
[rak̚.ram.piˈɟin.neʒ nu.raʔɾ.to.ɟi.wa.wesˌpim]
Rakrampigin ner Nuraʼr to-gi-wa·w·es·pim
Rakrampigin FOC Nuraʼr DEF.SG-can-CAUS·sound
Nuraʼr can even play the rakrampigin.
Of course, depending on context, ‘even’ could be replaced by ‘also’ in the translation.
Focus and negation
[Side note: this section has been by far the single most difficult thing to write in this whole thread so far, and the primary reason why it’s taken me seven months to get this post written. Formal semantics breaks my brain…]
The focus particles ni and nub correspond to the negative focus particle (o)ŋo. This particle extends over the full range of use of both ni and nub, including contrastive and noncontrastive existentials (‘there’s no’), identity (‘is not’) and focus (‘it’s not ̣… who’):
Nir-oŋo.
[ˈni.ro.ŋo]
nir-oŋo
day-NEG.FOC
It’s getting dark. (lit. There’s no day.)
Anuknan nub tobsinerapwaloŋi, Feʼysa-ŋo.
[a.nuk̚ˌnan.nub̚ tob̚.si.ne.rap̚.waˈlo.ŋi | feʔjˌsa.ŋo]
Anuknan nub tob-si-e·ne·rap-wal·oŋ-i, Feʼysa-oŋo
Anuknan FOC too.much-PFV-eat-gone-3s, Feʼysa-NEG.FOC
It was Anuknan who ate up all the food, not Feʼysa.
Similarly, the positive particle ner corresponds to the negative particle (o)ŋad:
Bo-ŋad res bwenses.
[ˈbo.ŋad̚ res.bwenˈses]
bo-onad res b-w·en·ses
1-NEG.FOC yam 1s-like
I don’t like yams either.
What is the difference between a negative focus particle and a positive focus particle with a negated verb? For a simple verbal sentence such as this, not much, except perhaps for a very slight change of emphasis:
Ba-ner res bmawenses.
[ˈba.neʒ res.bma.wenˈses]
bo-onad res b-ma-w·en·ses
1-NEG.FOC yam 1s-NEG-like
I also don’t like yams.
However, more complex sentences reveal a difference in the scope of the negation: the negative focus particles take wide scope over the whole clause, whereas verbal negation takes narrow scope over the verb alone.
To demonstrate I’ll use this somewhat contrived sample sentence I posted in the English thread:
Atembra ner mawenses. ‘Even Attenborough, he doesn’t like.’
Atembra-ŋad wenses. ‘Not even Attenborough does he like.’
Now, consider what happens if we add the adverb nas ‘at some time’:
Atembra ner nasmawenses. ‘Even Attenborough, he sometimes doesn’t like.’
Atembra-ŋad naswenses. ‘Not even Attenborough does he like at any time / ever.’
In the first sentence ‘some time’ is not negated: it indicates that the proposition ‘he dislikes Attenborough’ is true at some time. In the second sentence ‘some time’ is within the negation: it indicates that the proposition ‘he likes Attenborough sometimes’ is false, i.e. that ‘he dislikes Attenborough’ is always true.
(The duality is slightly obscured in English due to its habit of using distinct negative-polarity items: ‘some’ negates to ‘any’ and ‘always not’ / ‘never’ negates to ‘ever’. Using the predicate calculus, the difference may be expressed informally as something like ∀(p≼Attenborough):∃time:¬like(him,p,time) as opposed to ∀(p≼Attenborough):¬∃time:like(him,p,time).)
That last sentence shows a very important point: sentences with negative focal particles are often translatable using universal quantifiers like ‘all’ or ‘no’. Indeed, these particles (especially (o)ŋad) are the primary means to express universal quantification in Eŋes. In these cases they are usually combined with indefinite pronouns, as in this example:
Naʼo-ŋad nasrwelbulesnilbuʼi.
[naʔˈo.ŋad nas.rwel.bu.les.nilˈbuʔi/
naʼo-oŋad nas-rwelbu-les·ni·lbuʼ-i
INDEF.person-NEG.FOC INDEF.time-may-understand-3s
No-one ever understands him.
In this case a more literal translation might be, ‘there is not even a person who can understand him’.
What if you want to express a positive universal? Simply add another negative:
Naʼo-ŋad nasmarwelbulesnilbuʼi.
[naʔˈo.ŋad nas.maɾ.wel.bu.les.nilˈbuʔi/
naʼo-oŋad nas-ma-rwelbu-les·ni·lbuʼ-i
INDEF.person-NEG.FOC INDEF.time-NEG-may-understand-3s
Everyone always understands him. (lit. No-one ever doesn’t understand him.)
These kinds of idiomatic double negatives are the standard mechanism of expressing universal sentences, of the sort which in English would require words like ‘everyone’, ‘everything’ or ‘all’.
As a special case, nub can combine with these sentences to indicate an exception or, well, a special case, as with English ‘except’, ‘only’ and ‘just’:
Naʼo-ŋad nasrwelbulesnilbuʼi, Nare nub.
[naʔˈo.ŋad nas.rwel.bu.les.nilˈbuʔi | naˈre.nub̚/
naʼo-oŋad nas-rwelbu-les·ni·lbuʼ-i, Nare nub
INDEF.person-NEG.FOC INDEF.time-may-understand-3s, Nare FOC
No-one ever understands him except Nare. / Only Nare ever understands him.
There is no exact translation for the converse ‘not only’; though note that even in English this hardly ever occurs alone, but rather as a component of a larger phrase ‘not only … but …’, which easy enough to translate with nub:
Sal sedgas tosiyosyaryoŋlaf, moʼ nub.
[sal.sed̚.ɡas.to.si.jos.jaɾ.joŋˈlaf | ˈmoʔ.nub̚]
sal se-dgas to-si-yosy-ary·oŋ·laf, moʼ nub
fire ACC-land DEF.SG-PFV-come-be.burnt, village FOC
The fire burnt down [not only] the land but also the village.
This post focusses (ha, ha, ha) on the following five particles [revised from the nine there used to be]:
| Particle | Gloss |
| ni | ‘it is’, ‘there is’ |
| nub | ‘but’, ‘except/only’ |
| ner | ‘also’, ‘even’ |
| (o)ŋo | ‘it isn’t’, ‘there isn’t’ |
| (o)ŋad | ‘nor’, ‘either’, ‘it’s not even’, ‘there’s no’ |
I call these ‘focus particles’ because that’s one of their more common uses, but as we’ll see they’re used for quite a few other purposes. I’ve already outlined the syntax of these constructions, so let’s skip that and go straight on to the semantics.
I’ve previously described the use of ni in verbless clauses, in which it’s used for presentational or existential constructions specifying a new referent. (In fact, in discourse ni is the standard method of introducing new referents, and especially new topics.) In verbal clauses it can be used as an existential too, but such sentences can also be purely focal, highlighting an argument without it necessarily being new in any way. Thus, this example from the linked post:
…is actually ambiguous, and can alternately be translated, It was a/the king who had three sons. It could be argued that as an existential this is biclausal while as a focal it would have to be monoclausal, although ‘clauses’ are a somewhat murky concept in Eŋes anyway.
The function of nub may be summarised as ‘contrastive focus’, as in this example:
Se bwenses, eŋe nub bmawenses.
[se.bwenˌses | eˈŋe.nub̚.bma.wenˌses]
s-te b-w·en·ses, eŋe nub b-ma-w·en·ses
ACC-this 1s-like, that FOC 1s-NEG-like
This one I like, but that I don’t.
We can see that nub is used when there is a contrast between one NP and another, whether the other referent is explicit (as in this example) or implicit in the discourse. (Note in the translation how English uses preposed NPs similarly.) Aside from this, its semantics are mostly similar to ni, though it is not nearly as common in existentials as ni is. In certain constructions nub also has some more specialised uses, outlined below.
The particle ner (note the usual realisation [neʒ]) could be called an ‘additive’ particle. In some sentences it can be translated by English ‘also’ or ‘too’:
Arnim rmoʼ tosiwales, baner nonsiwales.
[aɾˌnim.ʒmoʔ.to.si.waˈles | ˈba.neʒ non.si.waˌles]
arnim r-moʼ to-si-wal·es, ba-ner non-si-wal·es
Arnim ACC-village DEF.SG-PFV-go, 1s-FOC there.ANA-PFV-go
Arnim went to the village, and I went there too.
A similar example is this post from the Conlang Fluency Thread:
In other cases, there is a further implication that the focussed NP is extreme or unexpected in some way, as with English ‘even’:
Rakrampigin ner Nuraʼr togiwawespim.
[rak̚.ram.piˈɟin.neʒ nu.raʔɾ.to.ɟi.wa.wesˌpim]
Rakrampigin ner Nuraʼr to-gi-wa·w·es·pim
Rakrampigin FOC Nuraʼr DEF.SG-can-CAUS·sound
Nuraʼr can even play the rakrampigin.
Of course, depending on context, ‘even’ could be replaced by ‘also’ in the translation.
Focus and negation
[Side note: this section has been by far the single most difficult thing to write in this whole thread so far, and the primary reason why it’s taken me seven months to get this post written. Formal semantics breaks my brain…]
The focus particles ni and nub correspond to the negative focus particle (o)ŋo. This particle extends over the full range of use of both ni and nub, including contrastive and noncontrastive existentials (‘there’s no’), identity (‘is not’) and focus (‘it’s not ̣… who’):
Nir-oŋo.
[ˈni.ro.ŋo]
nir-oŋo
day-NEG.FOC
It’s getting dark. (lit. There’s no day.)
Anuknan nub tobsinerapwaloŋi, Feʼysa-ŋo.
[a.nuk̚ˌnan.nub̚ tob̚.si.ne.rap̚.waˈlo.ŋi | feʔjˌsa.ŋo]
Anuknan nub tob-si-e·ne·rap-wal·oŋ-i, Feʼysa-oŋo
Anuknan FOC too.much-PFV-eat-gone-3s, Feʼysa-NEG.FOC
It was Anuknan who ate up all the food, not Feʼysa.
Similarly, the positive particle ner corresponds to the negative particle (o)ŋad:
Bo-ŋad res bwenses.
[ˈbo.ŋad̚ res.bwenˈses]
bo-onad res b-w·en·ses
1-NEG.FOC yam 1s-like
I don’t like yams either.
What is the difference between a negative focus particle and a positive focus particle with a negated verb? For a simple verbal sentence such as this, not much, except perhaps for a very slight change of emphasis:
Ba-ner res bmawenses.
[ˈba.neʒ res.bma.wenˈses]
bo-onad res b-ma-w·en·ses
1-NEG.FOC yam 1s-NEG-like
I also don’t like yams.
However, more complex sentences reveal a difference in the scope of the negation: the negative focus particles take wide scope over the whole clause, whereas verbal negation takes narrow scope over the verb alone.
To demonstrate I’ll use this somewhat contrived sample sentence I posted in the English thread:
As above there are two equivalent ways to express this:
Atembra ner mawenses. ‘Even Attenborough, he doesn’t like.’
Atembra-ŋad wenses. ‘Not even Attenborough does he like.’
Now, consider what happens if we add the adverb nas ‘at some time’:
Atembra ner nasmawenses. ‘Even Attenborough, he sometimes doesn’t like.’
Atembra-ŋad naswenses. ‘Not even Attenborough does he like at any time / ever.’
In the first sentence ‘some time’ is not negated: it indicates that the proposition ‘he dislikes Attenborough’ is true at some time. In the second sentence ‘some time’ is within the negation: it indicates that the proposition ‘he likes Attenborough sometimes’ is false, i.e. that ‘he dislikes Attenborough’ is always true.
(The duality is slightly obscured in English due to its habit of using distinct negative-polarity items: ‘some’ negates to ‘any’ and ‘always not’ / ‘never’ negates to ‘ever’. Using the predicate calculus, the difference may be expressed informally as something like ∀(p≼Attenborough):∃time:¬like(him,p,time) as opposed to ∀(p≼Attenborough):¬∃time:like(him,p,time).)
That last sentence shows a very important point: sentences with negative focal particles are often translatable using universal quantifiers like ‘all’ or ‘no’. Indeed, these particles (especially (o)ŋad) are the primary means to express universal quantification in Eŋes. In these cases they are usually combined with indefinite pronouns, as in this example:
Naʼo-ŋad nasrwelbulesnilbuʼi.
[naʔˈo.ŋad nas.rwel.bu.les.nilˈbuʔi/
naʼo-oŋad nas-rwelbu-les·ni·lbuʼ-i
INDEF.person-NEG.FOC INDEF.time-may-understand-3s
No-one ever understands him.
In this case a more literal translation might be, ‘there is not even a person who can understand him’.
What if you want to express a positive universal? Simply add another negative:
Naʼo-ŋad nasmarwelbulesnilbuʼi.
[naʔˈo.ŋad nas.maɾ.wel.bu.les.nilˈbuʔi/
naʼo-oŋad nas-ma-rwelbu-les·ni·lbuʼ-i
INDEF.person-NEG.FOC INDEF.time-NEG-may-understand-3s
Everyone always understands him. (lit. No-one ever doesn’t understand him.)
These kinds of idiomatic double negatives are the standard mechanism of expressing universal sentences, of the sort which in English would require words like ‘everyone’, ‘everything’ or ‘all’.
As a special case, nub can combine with these sentences to indicate an exception or, well, a special case, as with English ‘except’, ‘only’ and ‘just’:
Naʼo-ŋad nasrwelbulesnilbuʼi, Nare nub.
[naʔˈo.ŋad nas.rwel.bu.les.nilˈbuʔi | naˈre.nub̚/
naʼo-oŋad nas-rwelbu-les·ni·lbuʼ-i, Nare nub
INDEF.person-NEG.FOC INDEF.time-may-understand-3s, Nare FOC
No-one ever understands him except Nare. / Only Nare ever understands him.
There is no exact translation for the converse ‘not only’; though note that even in English this hardly ever occurs alone, but rather as a component of a larger phrase ‘not only … but …’, which easy enough to translate with nub:
Sal sedgas tosiyosyaryoŋlaf, moʼ nub.
[sal.sed̚.ɡas.to.si.jos.jaɾ.joŋˈlaf | ˈmoʔ.nub̚]
sal se-dgas to-si-yosy-ary·oŋ·laf, moʼ nub
fire ACC-land DEF.SG-PFV-come-be.burnt, village FOC
The fire burnt down [not only] the land but also the village.