Introduction

In the last two chapters I have shown that while some linguistic expressions can be analysed in purely truth-conditional terms, others – the semantic constraints on relevance – cannot. This raises an interesting theoretical question: how does one decide whether a given linguistic expression is truth-conditional or not? In this chapter, I will propose tests for distinguishing between truth-conditional and non-truth-conditional uses and look at a particle – baa – which appears to have both types of use. The existence of such particles raises a second interesting theoretical question: must they be analysed as genuinely ambiguous between truth-conditional senses, or can they be treated as merely vague?

My answer to these questions will be as follows. First, baa is not multiply ambiguous: it has two core meanings, one truth-conditional and the other non-truth-conditional, from which the full range of uses can be predicted. Second, it is genuinely ambiguous between truth-conditional and non-truth-conditional uses. However, the two core meanings are clearly related, and this type of ambiguity or polysemy between truthconditional and non-truth-conditional senses is quite common. I shall end with some speculations on why such ambiguities are found.

Uses of baa

Temporal uses

Baa has a variety of temporal uses. In all of these, it is positioned consistently before the VP. Its semantic interpretations are discussed below.

The iterative and restitutive use

Both baa in Sissala and again in English may have an iterative or restitutive interpretation. What exactly I mean by this will be explained by reference to the examples. The following examples have an iterative interpretation.