Re: Question on Géarthnuns grammar (sorta long)

Kou wrote:

>From: "Matt Pearson"
>
>> Let's see:  "Höi" is used in the following contexts:
>
>> -- Precedes the direct object (or other dependent) of a participial verb.
>> -- Precedes the direct object (or other dependent) of an eventive noun.
>> -- Precedes the direct object (or other dependent) of a lexical verb in a
>>      causative construction.
>
>> Diagnosis:  "Höi" is a particle which marks the following constituent as
>> being the complement of a non-finite (i.e. untensed) predicate.
>
>Gosh, it really *is* a particle?!!
>
>> This analysis relies on the assumption that the lexical verb in a
>> causative construction is non-finite.  I must admit that causative
>> constructions in Géarthnuns look a little strange to me.  If I understand
>> your glosses, it seems as though causativity is marked by using a
>> special class of auxiliaries.  In most SOV natlangs that I know of,
>> causativity is marked either by adding a suffix to the lexical verb,
>> or by using a causative verb which takes a participial/infinitival
>> clause complement.  I would thus have expected one of these
>> constructions in Géarthnuns (for "John made me write the letter"):
>>
>>    John  AUX  me  HÖI  the  letter  write-CAUS
>>    John  AUX  me  HÖI  the  letter  write-GERUND  cause
>>
>> Perhaps if you explain how causative constructions in Géarthnuns
>> work...
>
>You had it right the first time. The shléts, the *auxiliary*, marks tense,
>but it also marks voice, of which the causative is considered a member in
>Géarthnuns.
[snip examples]

>thus "John made me write the letter."
>
>Íöhans lén sít höi cha pfesensat fuzh.
>John-nom past-caus I-acc höi the letter-acc write
>
>If I understand the term "non-finite", then the lexical verb is typically
>"non-finite" since tense (present, past, future, present perfect, past
>perfect, future perfect, and transcendent) and voice (active, passive,
>dative passive, causative, causative passive, reflexive, and impersonal) are
>marked by the auxiliary, while mood (indicative, interrogative, imperative,
>speculative, conclusive, discoursive, and hortative) and lexical meaning are
>indicated by the verb. Of all things, I didn't expect this to be the strange
>or exotic feature, since it seems that most of the features that have
>evolved thus far in Géarthnuns are, yawn, natlangish.
Rest assured, your auxiliary system is downright weird.
In my experience with natlangs, it's pretty rare for passives,
causatives, and reflexives to be conflated quite so neatly...

You bring up a troubling point for my analysis, which is that, in effect,
*all* verbs in Géarthnuns are non-finite, inasmuch as tense/agreement
features are always marked on the auxiliary.  So the fact that "höi" shows
up in causative sentences as well as nominalised clauses, but not in non-
causative sentences, is mysterious.

OK, so here's my next question:  Is there an auxiliary which allows
the "höi"-marked direct object of a causative verb to be 'promoted'
in a passive-like construction?  In other words, corresponding to
a sentence like "John made me write the letter", is there any
construction which allows "the letter" to be made the subject?

   The letter  AUX  John-INST  me-ACC  write

If the answer is (as I hope) no, then I think I have your answer:
"Höi" marks the noun phrase which proponents of Relational Grammar
call a "chomeur".  A chomeur is any noun phrase which acts as an
argument of a verb, but is 'syntactically inert', in the sense that
it cannot be passivised or subjected to other relation-changing
operations.  For example, consider double-object constructions
in English:

   John gave Bill the book.
   Bill was given the book (by John).
   * The book was given Bill (by John).

In my dialect of English (I know others differ), it is not possible
to make the second object in a double object construction (here,
"the book") into the subject by passivising the verb.  Only
the first object ("Bill") may be promoted under passivisation.
Relational Grammarians argue that this is because "the book"
is a chomeur.

The direct objects of nouns and gerunds are clearly chomeurs
as well, since it's not possible to passivise nouns and gerunds.

So here's my new answer:

"Höi" is a particle which indicates that the following noun
phrase is a syntactically inert complement (chomeur).

Matt.