Re: Re : Case, Innateness, Almost Allnoun, NGL.
|Date:||Thursday, August 5, 1999, 18:40|
Gerald Koenig wrote:
> Well, thanks to both of you for commenting. It's a big surprise to me
> how strongly you feel about it. I was just exploring. I must have
> crossed some border without a visa.
Yes, and there are some cannibals around.
> >I seriously believe Mathias is the great Verb-Sage of Conlang. I have
> >neither studied enough on verbs in real-world linguistics, nor worked
> >hard enough on my own on a verbal system for a conlang, to appreciate
> >much of the wisdom he imparts, but should I embark on either of those
> >endeavors I will become his attentive disciple.
Partly this is due to a different linguistic school-of-thought
in France, apparently influenced by Prague. Refreshing change
from Chomsky, eh? Sorry. I like a wide diversity of opinions.
> >> > xxxx an argument for a localist hypothesis of case roles and
> >> > clause structure as part of the genetic endowment of the human
> >> > species.
> >> > Scott DeLancy's words.
This is not as radical and controversial as it first seemed to me.
The "localist" views seem to be in the majority now, in one form
or another, across all the linguistic camps; at least, I don't
see any violent reactions against it.
> >> the NGL stuff is slightly simplistic.
> >> you may want to listen to your children and ponder :
So it could be made *more* simplistic?? OK. How?
NGL seems to be one polite umbrella term for many variant
dialects, a nice way to keep people talking for a while,
but not a very unified comprehensive systematic approach.
But someday they may converge, who knows? Interesting.
> >> and a few other ***s when these above are cleared up.
> >> "tense" is off-topic : rather discuss "aspect".
Aspect is more useful for word-building, right?
But I have seen vector-tense aproaches like G.K.'s
proposed by some linguistic theorists.
> >> as for "verb-minimalist", i think speaking of "verb" is
> >> already mixing PoS and cases.
I am thinking so too. Pandora's box contained verbs.
> >> and discussing "recipient" without pondering "result"
> >> is nonsense.
A said P to D ... A told D about P ... P was told to D by A
A gave P to D ... A gave D the P ... D received P from A
A made P be S ... A S-ed the P ... S of P by A
So, one should-can systematically derive "a speaker/saying/hearer",
a "donor/gift/recipient", and a "destroyer/destruction/victim".
Probably one should also derive "telephone/checkbook/weapon" ...
but I don't know how.