Re: Question on Géarthnuns grammar (sorta long)

From: "Matt Pearson"

> 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...
Well, let's call it "unorthodox" rather than "weird", shall we? :) And
anyway, Géarthnuns speakers are neat freaks.

> 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.
Hmm. For me, "höi"'s popping up is a marker for a certain kind of embedding.
In formal and written Géarthnuns, if a sentence *starts* with a gerund
phrase, "höi" is normally dropped as its considered redundant or
superfluous, though in spoken usage it is often retained out of force of
habit. So:

Sí lé höi sa fusumbansat chau glozhalörsaut söböraut tel.
I-nom past höi a ice.cream-acc the eating-acc his-acc see
I saw him eating ice cream.

but

(Höi) Sa fusumbansat chau glozhalörs la sí bvéíansfals nöi.
(höi) a ice.cream-acc the eating-nom pres a pleasure-nom be
Eating ice cream is a pleasure.

or even, with fronting (the slightly stilted)

(Höi) Sa fusumbansat chau glozhalörsaut söböraut sí lé tel.
(höi) a ice.cream-acc the eating-acc his-acc I-nom past see
His eating ice cream I saw.

In a non-causative sentence, "höi" is not necessary, because the
relationship between the direct object(s) and the verb is clear.

Sí la sau teshersaut (zhö sö ngarebsöt) tel.
I-nom pres a cat-acc (and a dog-acc) see
I see a cat (and a dog).

In a causative sentence, there are two different direct objects, one that
goes with the act of compelling, and the other which goes with the verb
itself.

Sí lén chö ngarebsöt höi chau teshersaut shfíkaz.
I-nom past/caus the dog-acc höi the cat-acc chase
I made the dog chase the cat.

Without "höi"

Sí lén chö ngarebsöt chau teshersaut shfíkaz.

is potentially ambiguous as to what I made what do what to what. Granted in
this example, context (and in normal sentences, word order) helps out, but
"höi" allows for greater clarity in embedding in more complex sentences.

Sí lé Íöhansak, gü fap lan vö ngarekhsöt höi vau teshemsaut vö béökhsöv sha
hüshfíkaz sho, ngamath.
I-nom past John-dat, that he-nom/neg pres/caus the/neg dog-acc/neg HÖI
the/neg cat-acc/neg the/neg house-loc/neg "let"(an adv. which tweeks the
meaning of the causative) chase-imperative SHO, tell
I told John not to let the dog chase the cat in the house.

It's as if what happens between "höi" and the verb is a kind of subordinate
clause even though it's not a clause proper. ("sho" fulfills a similar role
at the *end* of subordinate clauses). "Höi" says "there's an embedded
structure coming up" and that structure is closed by a gerund, an eventive
noun (cool term - I pilfered it from you), or the verb (in a causative
sentence); "sho" says "this embedded clause has ended (such as a relative or
other subordinate clause), we now return you to the main sentence, already
in progress".

> 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
No, there is not.

> 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.
Íöhans lé chí gefrölsít Bilsík gamez.
John-nom past the book-acc Bill-dat give
Joh gave Bill the book

Bils lék chí gefrölsít (Íöhansan) gamez.
Bill-nom past-dative.passive the book-acc (John-instr) give
Bill was given the book (by John).

Chí gefröls lét Bilsík (Íöhansan) gamez.
the book-nom past-pass Bill-dat (John-instr) give
The book was given (to) Bill (by John).

> The direct objects of nouns and gerunds are clearly chomeurs
> as well, since it's not possible to passivise nouns and gerunds.
The eating of the ice cream was seen by me?
The ice cream's being eaten was seen by me?

> So here's my new answer:
>
> "Höi" is a particle which indicates that the following noun
> phrase is a syntactically inert complement (chomeur).
Well, the possibility of having something called a "chomeur" in my lang is
certainly exciting.

Kou