Re: Group Conlang

De: Mathias M. Lassailly <lassailly@...>
Fecha: Lunes 12 de Octubre de 1998 15:57
Asunto: Re: Group Conlang


>I posted a reply to Pablo whereby I disagreed on predicate roots,
> but reading Carlos' post, I withdraw my disagreement provided we
> make two new cases, namely the genuine ABSOLUTIVE and
> CAUSATIVE cases to use with predicates derived from instruments.
>
>I explain why herebelow :
>
>Carlos wrote :
>
>>Some considerations:
>>
>> Roots
>> The roots are concepts which could be material concepts, such roots will
be
>> some how nominal and the derived verb could mean: using the thing in the
>> propper way ("to hammer" from "a hammer" or "to sit" from "a chair"),
making
>> the thing, being the thing, et cetera.
>
>Yes. You're right and so was Pablo. My apologies. I didn't see that we
agree in fact. :-(
>But then I need 2 more cases : CAUSATIVE and ABSOLUTIVE :
>I propose :
>
>'to hammer'
>= absolutive+noun  pred-hammer
>= to work as a hammer
>
>'to hammer'
>= erg+noun pred-hammer
>= 'to use as a hammer'
>
>'to be hammered'
>= patient+noun pred-hammer
>
>You wonder why I use CAUSATIVE and not ERGATIVE,
>and why I use ABSOLUTIVE and not UNDERGOER
>The following examples explain why :
>
>'he rises'
>= undergoer-he pred-rise
>
>'he raises'
>causative-he undergoer-he pred-rise
>
>It's different from 'to hammer'. Look at that :
>
>'he hammers'
>= erg-he pred-hammer
>
>'he's hammered'
>= patientive-he pred-hammer
>
>'he has her hammer the dog'
>= caus-he erg-she pat-dog pred-hammer
>
>'he has her hammered by the man with a stick'
>= caus-he erg-man pat-she abs-stick pred-hammer
>
>Well I'd like two more cases : ABSOLUTIVE to refer to the one acting as a
> hammer (not the one using it) and CAUSATIVE to tag the agent who makes
> someone else raise.
>
>You will notice that these are the cases needed to make the
> mieru/miru/miseru/misaseru distinction without any verbal suffixes /
>
>'the man appears'
>= absolutive-man pred-image
>= 'it is like an image'
>
>'the man sees'
>= undergoer-man pred-image
>
>'the man shows something'
>= erg-man pred-image
>= 'he uses as an image'
>
>'the man shows to someone'
>= caus-man pred-image
>= 'the man makes someone see'
>
>You'll realize we don't need many adjectives anymore if we have these
possibilities :
>apparent =  mu-absolutive-image
>beautiful = mu-absolutive/attributive-beauty
Well.  It seams than transitivity and other stuff of the verb structure is
cover by simple predicates and a series of cases.  We only have to decide
which case combinations which meaning has.

1) agent-W1 patient-W2 predicate-W3
means W3 is transitive verb, W1 is the subject and causes the action, and W2
is the object modified or hold by the action.

2) undergoer-W4 predicate-W3
means W3 is an intransitive verb, W4 is the subject which is modified by the
action.

Note that
3) patient-W2 predicate-W3
is the same than 1) but with missing agent, and
4) patient-W1 undergoer-W4 predicate-W3
is the same as 2) and additional information is given: "and it happens
because fo W1".

We only need enough cases we can cover the most common constructions.  We
should see if the examples and cases given by Mathias, Pablo and myself are
enough and if some cases could be droped.

All other posible case (i.e. locatives) could be used with adpositions
(postposition as it seems most of us agree).

>> If a root is an action concept, those roots are verbal ones.  The derived
>> noun will be the action ("killing" from "to kill" or "biting" from "to
>> bite").
>
>I derive 'to kill' from 'to die' via causative :
>
>undergoer-he pred-death
>'he dies'
>
>caus-he undergoer-she pred-death
>'he kills her'
>
>> If a root is an attribute, it is an adjectival root.  The noun will mean
the
>> name of the atribute ("red color" from "red") and the verb would mean
having
>> the attribute or putting the attribute on something.  The disctiontion
would
>> be by concept:  _UNDERGOER-Noun1 PREDICATE-Attrib_ will mean Noun1 is/has
>> Atrib, but _AGENT-Noun2 PATIENT-Noun1 PREDICATE-Attrib_ will mean Noun2
>> makes/holds Attrib to Noun1.
>>
>> In converting roots into attributes the followin schemes could be used:
>> from nominal roots: the modified root is or has a propperty if the
modifying
>> root.
>> from verbal roots: the modified root is modified by the action or acts.
>> Some aditional derivation would be needed... maybe by voice.
>>
>> A dictionary should hold all the meanings a root would have as different
>> PoS.
>>
>> Case/PoS tags:
>> Will be as small as possible for most common concepts.
>> I would like no case tag for Theme/Topic.
>> I would like one letter case tag for patient, agent and predicate.
>> I wouldn't complain for flexing case tags, examples:
>> roots:  rum,  kal,  og
>> case1: prum, ukal, pog
>> case2: orum, okal, wog
>
>Ok.
>
>> I don't mean extrem cases like those above, but some flexibility could
rise.
>>
>> Agreeement:
>> I vote for agreement between modified and modifier not by case but by
other
>> element of the screeve, like the tense, dinamism, voice, aspect, number,
>> evidence or gender.
>
>Would it be that you do speak Spanish ? :-)
nnnope...
It is because I don't want multiple case markers in a word and something
would be needed to mark which modifier goes with which word, and after we
want some freedom in the orther we need some agreement.

See bellow.

>> Maybe proximity or deixis would be another non-compulsory part of the
>> screeve.  This allow us to take appart two individual things of the same
>> gender.
>
>Yes.
>
>> We should define which elements will form the screeve, which are
compulsory
>> and which not, and use the non-compulsory parts for disambiguishing: like
>> for using for modifier-modified agreement or give extra information which
>> could clarify the meaning.
>
>I don't get that one. More please.
>
>Mathias
Well, Pablo seems to have explain it better.
We could say:

John met Paul yesterday but his dog bit him
undergoer-John topic-Paul yesterday predicate-meet but determinant-he
agent-dog patient-he predicate-bite

Is not clear enough.  What is determinant-he attribute of?  Let's suppose
position indicate the dog.
Whose dog? his? Pablo or John.  So we need something determinant-he agrees
with agent-dog, after dog is an animal, we could say determinant-he-animal
agent-dog-animal.  And we could use marks for telling which character is
"he" referring to.  Thus:

  undergoer-John-A topic-Paul-B yesterday predicate-meet but
determinant-A-animal agent-dog-animal patient-B predicate-bite
If John's dog bit Paul or
  undergoer-John-A topic-Paul-B yesterday predicate-meet but
determinant-B-animal agent-dog-animal patient-A predicate-bite
If Paul's dog bit John.

But if the speaker and the listener know John has no dog, there is no need
for A and B tags, and a generic -(s)he- could be used:
  undergoer-John topic-Paul-B yesterday predicate-meet but
determinant-(s)he-animal agent-dog-animal patient-B predicate-bite

Then the screeve could contain:
Grammatical gender (what ever we decide gender is, maybe "class")
Sexual gender (feminine and masculine)
Deixis (those -A and -B tags, as I understand them)
Proximity ("this", "that")
Tense (past, present, future)
Aspect ([un]perfect, progressive, ...)
Determination ("a" or "the")
Number (generic, singular, dual, paucal, plural)
Evidence (perceived, deduced, told...)
Voice (passive, active, middle, ...)
Dynamism (dynamic, static)
Mode (indicative, interrogative, subjunctive, imperative, conditional, ...)

Some of them would be compulsory (obligatory) like grammatical gender and
aspect.  All the rest will allow us to add needed information for
grammatical or semantical purposes.

-- Carlos Th