Re: CHAT: Telek nominalization

Marcus Smith wrote:

> Based on what I know about other languages with applicatives--in which the
> argument that is added by the applicative morphology takes on the properties of a
> direct object--I would have expected "-m" to be used for these guys, giving
> contrasts like:
>
>   na'ni-m   "that which is cooked"
>   ax-na'ni-m  "one who is cooked-for"
>
> I should have realized you wouldn't let that slip by. :) This was, in fact,
> how the system looked when I started working on this topic, but I quickly
> decided it wasn't very interesting.
>
> Do applied arguments have any object properties in this language, or are they
> treated as obliques?
>
> They are treated like objects as far as verbal agreement and passivization is
> concerned. However, applied arguments and regular objects have the same
> possibilities in regards to incorporation (though you can't have two nouns
> incorporated into one verb). On the other hand, you cannot possessor raise
> out of an applied argument, but you can out of an object
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.
Since nominalization in Telek seems to be a fairly surfacy operation, I would
expect it to treat applied objects like regular objects of non-applicative verbs, and
to treat regular objects of applicative verbs differently.

One possibility would be to have one nominalizer for subjects, a second one for
surface direct objects, and a third one for objects 'en chomage' (i.e.,
non-agreeing direct objects, including the direct objects of ditransitive and
applicative verbs). Something like this:

Monotransitives:

  na'ni-n  "one who cooks"
  na'ni-m  "that which is cooked"

Monotransitives with incorporated objects:

  emfyy-na'ni-n  "one who cooks meat"

Ditransitives and applicatives:

  ken-e-n  "one who gives (s.th.) to (s.o.)"
  ken-e-m  "one to whom (s.th.) is given"
  ken-e-tap  "that which is given to (s.o.)"

  ax-na'ni-n  "one who cooks (s.th.) for (s.o.)"
  ax-na'ni-m  "one for whom (s.th.) is cooked"
  ax-na'ni-tap  "that which is cooked for (s.o.)"

Ditransitives and applicatives with incorporated objects:

  emfyy-ken-e-n  "one who gives meat to (s.o.)"
  emfyy-ken-e-m  "one to whom meat is given"

  [boy]-ken-e-n  "one who gives things to boys"
  [boy]-ken-e-tap  "that which is given to boys"

  ax-emfyy-na'ni-n  "one who cooks meat for (s.o.)"
  ax-emfyy-na'ni-m  "one for whom meat is cooked"

  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"?)

The rule here would be that "-n" is used to form a noun which refers to the
surface subject of the verb (i.e., the argument associated with subject
case/agreement), while "-m" is used to form a noun referring to the surface
object of the verb (i.e., the argument associated with object case/agreement),
and "-tap" is used elsewhere.

I think that would be a very interesting and entirely believable system. Of
course, it's all up to you...


> One question:  Can you add these suffixes to entire verb phrases, or just verb
> stems?
>
>   I could imagine constructions like this (here I'm pretending that "maka"
> means "meat", not knowing the Telek word):
>
>   maka na'ni-n  "one who cooks meat"
>   maka ax-na'ni-tap  "one for whom meat is cooked"
>
> Entire verb phrases currently, though I'm still debating whether or not to allow
> adverbs inside. To follow up on your examples (using the proper Telek word
> for 'meat' :)). Generally speaking, object will be incorporated into the
> verb, though leaving it free is not unheard of. Not only that, but you can
> still get "agreement" with an applied argument inside a nominalization.
>
>   emfyy-na'ni-n "one who cooks meat"
>   emfyy na'ni-n "one who cooks meat"
>   l-ax-emfyy-na'ni-n "one who cooks meat for me"
>
>   ax-emfyy-na'ni-tap "one for whom meat is cooked"
>   emfyy ax-na'ni-tap "one for whom meat is cooked"
>
> If constructions of this sort fit with the character of Telek, this could give you
> a neat way of forming relative clauses--viz., by juxtaposing a head noun with the
> appropriate nominalization:  "man one-who-cooks-meat" = "the man who cooks meat",
> "man one-for-whom-meat-is-cooked" = "the man for whom the meat is cooked".
>
> This is an interesting proposal. But I already have my internally-headed relative
> clauses that I like far to much to abandon.
Who says you have to abandon anything? Some languages have multiple kinds of
relative clauses--e.g., Finnish and German, which have prenominal participial
relatives alongside postnominal English-like relative clauses. Tokana is like
this. Maybe Telek could be like this too.

Anyway, all of this has whetted my appetite for more Telek.  Please post more when you can!

Matt.

Reply