Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ    Attic   

Re: Case

From:Boudewijn Rempt <bsarempt@...>
Date:Saturday, July 10, 1999, 9:25
On Sat, 10 Jul 1999, From Http://Members.Aol.Com/Lassailly/Tunuframe.Html w=

> why so many locative cases ? do you feel it is better > than deriving them from nouns and verbs ? > to reach > until > in-side > in > enter inside > into > i'd thought the languges you study are likely to do so. >=20
Well, what I'm doing is not exactly inventing them; I have a 1992 grammar of Denden in which they are all already named. I'll be taking a copy with me to Londen - you did have some Dutch, didn't you? There are some connections with related verbs, but basically, I already had about 80 adpositions, and I have to analyze them in some coherent way. What I'm doing with Denden is not inventing it here and now, but working on all the material I made from 1985 to 1993, and it is very seldom that I have to add anything to the available material (always excepting lexical items). In that sense it is real fieldwork. So I'm stuck with the particles - can't do anything about it! (But I've grown to like them - they are easy in use!)
> your NOM "ga" intrigues me. is it like in japanese : >=20 > THEME-wa ... RHEME(-da) > RHEME/FOCUS-ga .... THEME(-da) >=20 > ("theme" is topical and "rheme" is expletive) >=20
This is what it started out as - it has developed in usage to a final copula, which can be negated, but never has tense, aspect of attitudinal qualifiers. Well, when I say never, I must admit that many non-native speakers of Denden do pretty much what they want with it, and while not common, phrases like the next are=20 found: =2E Quandiyal lyan Quandiyal pretty NEG.NOM.CRT Quandiyal is certainly not pretty! =20 But this is recognized by autochtonous grammarians as sub-standard and non-Charyan usage. But all in all, _ga_ isn't a verb.
> why call it "NOM" while it looks like a final copula ?
Tradition, mere tradition! In the 1992 grammar of Denden I have the following examples with _ga_ NOM: Passive: =2E Quna.dir ga muanir. =20 cat.p NOM stroke The cats are being stroked =20 Existentials: =2E Charya ga Pal. Charya NOM emperor There is an emperor in Charya, Charya has an emperor. =20 =2E Charya ta ga Pal. Charya NEG NOM emperor There isn't an emperor in Charya, Charya does not have an emperor. Contrast with: =20 =2E Charya.zu adan.dan atan Pal Charya.LOC man.p to_be emperor In Charya there is an emperor. It is possible to finish off the _ga_ phrase with the particle _at_ EXIST: Ga Pantumatar at=20 NOM Pantumatar EXIST Pantumatar exists Sera ga Pantumatar at.=20 3shGH NOM Pantumatar EXIST Pantumatar he exists. Pantumatar ga at. Pantumatar NOM EXIST Pantumatar exists. Attribtution: Charya ga n=E0dal ray. =20 Charya NOM country good Charya is a good country Da ga Dustladan. 3sMGH NOM Dustlani He is a Dustlani Attributive _ga_ phrases can be finished with _yautan_ ATTR =20 Sero ga Daine yautan.=20 1sHGH NOM daine ATTR. I am the Daine. Ga Daine yautan seri.=20 NOM daine ATTR 2sHGH Are you the Daine? Situative expressions: Broi ga klonlyan tan Pal. Broi NOM palace TAN emperor In Broi is the palace of the emperor Situative expressions can be finished with cu SIT. Andan ga sumis cu. man NOM wine SIT The wine is in the man sumis ga taush cu yan. wine NOM caraffe SIT too There's wine in the caraffe too. Object nominalisation: Adanvough qireze barusha. old_man see mountain The old man sees the mountain =20 barusha (ga) goho (yautan) mountain (NOM) high (ATTR) The mountain is high These two nominalised to object: =20 Adanvough ga barusha goho qireze.=20 old_man NOM mountain high see The old man sees the mountain that is high. The old man sees that the mountain is high. Keda ga naha afran teshitlo gevir ram. father NOM mother go market give money=20 father gives money to mother who goes to the marked Zinahama ga aday yos=E9 sam=E9.=20 grandma NOM child cheeky say Grandma gives the cheeky child a talking-to Well, what do you think? How would you analyse _ga_ on the basis of these examples? Boudewijn Rempt |