Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: CHAT: Telek nominalization

From:SMITH,MARCUS ANTHONY <smithma@...>
Date:Saturday, March 31, 2001, 17:09
I've rethought the system. I've added another nominalizer and shifted some
boundaries around.

Three have remained unchanged:
-n subject-oriented (agentive, according to traditional terminology)
-k makes a language name (though not strictly a nominalizer anymore, since
it can be attached to nouns)
-m object-orientd -- it can only be used for the direct object of the verb

The changes:

Instrumental: -atap
It refers to an instrument used in performing the action of the verb.

na'ni 'cook' -> ba-na'ni-tap 'cooking utensil'
lisa 'sing' -> ag-lisa-tap 'singing voice'

Locational: -anag
It refers to a location involved in performing the action of the verb.

na'ni 'cook' ->  ngo-na'ni-nag  'kitchen'
ydla'as 'walk' -> mii-ydla'as-anag  'destination, place you walk to'
ydla'as 'walk' -> ad-ydla'as-anag 'point-of-origin, place you walk from'

This system has no way to nominalize based on goals, benefactives, and
comtiatives; and that is the way I'm keeping things. These types of things
have to be expressed through the use of verbs that treat them as a subject
or direct object. For example, instead of saying 'one who s.o gives s.t.
to', one would say 'one who receives s.t'.

On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, J Matthew Pearson wrote:

> Hmmm... Sounds to me like applied arguments are kind of 'surfacy' direct objects, > since they do surfacy (case-related) things like passivize and trigger > agreement; while regular objects are 'deep' direct objects, since they do > deep (thematic role-related) things like act as the target for possessor > raising.
I'm not sure how diagnostic that is. Subjects also allow possessor raising and arguments of applicatives can be incorporated, which you would expect of a deep object rather than a surface one. (I have in mind the fact that some languages can incorporate the subject of an unaccusative but not the subject of an unergative.)
> ax-[boy]-na'ni-n "one who cooks for boys" (or would it be "[boy]-ax-na'ni-n"?) > ax-[boy]-na'ni-tap "that which is cooked for boys" ("[boy]-ax-na'ni-tap"?)
LOL! You couldn't know, but the agentive example you used means "one who cooks boys for [3rd inanimate]". It sounds like a crazy guy who cooks children for his pet rock. :) The second one would mean: "that which is cooked boys for [3rd inanimate]". Doesn't make much sense. :) You guesses in parenthesis were correct. si'to-ax-na'ni-n "one who cooks for boys" si'to-ax-na'ni-tap "that which is cooked for boys" Under the current system, they would be: si'to-ax-na'ni-n "one who cooks for boys" si'to-ax-na'ni-m "that which is cooked for boys" Not much different from my previous proposal in these examples. Marcus