Re: Tagalog discussion (was: Anadewism questions 2: Linking particles)

On Saturday, May 7, 2005, at 08:10 , Roger Mills wrote:
[snip]
> musings to her, just before Christmas.  Due to Real Life, she took her
> time
> replying...and I've taken even longer getting around to mentioning this
> (very red face...)-- but I have the reply and two longish papers from her,
> which we hope will be illuminating.
Yep - they were.

> One is 80kb, the other is 49kb, both in .doc format (they open in MS Word
> on
> my computer).
..and AppleWorks opens them up with no problem on my Mac   :)

> I'll forward these to any and all who ask.
..and you have - thanks.

What I noticed is that nowhere in the two papers did Paz Naylor use the
term 'trigger', which caused so much trouble in that previous thread. I
must say that I find the trigger explanation rather odd in the the
triggered element comes first and we don't get to the trigger itself till
the end; which is why, I guess, some have (confusingly IMO) re-interpreted
'trigger' to mean the "verbal affix" (if indeed it is a verbal affix - see
below) and thus use the term 'trigger' in a way it is not otherwise used
in linguistics.

So, if Paz Naylor's thesis is correct not all natlangs have nouns and
verbs, since what we think of as nouns and verbs belong to the *same
syntactic* category, namely _noun_, in Tagalog & related langs. So there
are natlangs with no (syntactic) verbs   :)

I thought it would be amusing and/or interesting to give her example
sentences in "Tagologized" Latin. As she considers the sentences consist
of two NPs - Comment + Topic - linked by parataxis. I have done same as
parataxis is found in Latin. But I have had to make a couple of
modifications to normal Latin:
1. As the is no syntactic category of 'verb', I use the infinitive as a
noun (there is in fact precedence for this in Latin in any case).
2. I will re-cycle the following prefixes to indicate what Paz Naylor as
'actor focus', 'goal focus' etc, thus:
  ad- actor focus (AF)
  ob- goal focus (GF)
  ex- locative focus (LF)
  pro- benefactive focus (BF)
  usu- instrumental focus (IF)

   adtollisse    calceorum   mulier
AF-remove-PERF  shoe-GEN.PL woman-NOM.S
The woman removed her shoes.

   obtollisse   mulieris    calcei
OF-remove-PERF woman-GEN.S shoe-NOM.S
The woman removed her shoes.     [different focus ]

   extollisse   mulieris    calceorum   puer
LF-remove-PERF woman-GEN.S shoe-GEN.PL child-NOM.S
The woman removed the shoes from the child.

   protollisse  mulieris    spinarum     puer
BF-remove-PERF woman-GEN.S thorn-GEN.PL child-NOM.S

   usutollisse  mulieris    calceorum   calceatrum
IF-remove-PERF woman-GEN.S shoe-GEN.PL shoehorn-NOM.S

Notes:
1. The nominative case (NOM) marks the topic.
2. The 'enlargements' of the verbal _noun_ 'tollisse' are considered to be
_attributes_ and not verbal arguments; in Tagalog their attributive status
is shown by the genitive construction and thus, in the sentences above,
they are shown in the genitive case (GEN).
also:
3. [For the purists]'tollisse' is attested as the perfect active
infinitive of 'tollere' "to remove" in Classical Latin, tho more often its
perfect tenses were supplied by _sustlisse_, the perfect of _sufferre_.
4. [For those sensitive to sexist vocabulary] 'puer' is strictly epicine
and is found in Classical Latin with feminine agreement if the child is
female, tho masculine agreement is more common.

A new conlang - Latalog??    :-)

Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
ray.brown@freeuk.com
===============================================
Anything is possible in the fabulous Celtic twilight,
which is not so much a twilight of the gods
as of the reason."      [JRRT, "English and Welsh" ]