David Peterson wrote:
> The fact that you have an NP and a V "conjoined", in a way, by
> agreement allows you to do *other* things. For example, let's
> say it worked this way:
This is beginning to look a little like a Philippine language...
>
> (1) kaven meluri ritapu tunese tuxoro.
> /I-man II-woman-DAT III-flower-ACC IV-tongs-INS IV-give-PAST/
> "The man gave the woman a flower with tongs."
>
> (2) tunese tuxoro kaven meluri ritapu.
> /IV-tongs-INS IV-give-PASTI-man II-woman-DAT III-flower-ACC /
> "A man gave a woman a flower with the tongs."
In these, you could say it's "instrumental focus"; perhaps (1) would
translate as you have it, (2) with fronting (emphasis?) might mean "it was
with the tongs that a man...etc."
>
> (3) meluri mexoro kaven tunese ritapu.
> /II-woman-DAT II-give-PAST I-man IV-tongs-INS III-flower-ACC /
> "A man gave the woman a flower with tongs."
Dative focus!
>
> (4) kaven kaxoro meluri ritapu tunese.
> /I-man I-give-PAST II-woman-DAT III-flower-ACC IV-tongs-INS/
> "The man gave a flower to a woman with tongs."
Agent focus!
I can see, you're using the agreement pattern to show only +/- definiteness;
but it could be showing other things as well.
What if all arguments are definite? "The man gave the flower to the woman
with the tongs"?