Re: Question on Géarthnuns grammar (sorta long)

Kou wrote:

>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.
Hmm, interesting.  Of course, viewing "höi" as a marker of
embedding begs the question "What kind of embedding?"--which is
I guess what prompted your original query.  The core fact seems
to be that "höi" marks the direct objects of a certain class of
predicates.  The examples you cite above don't necessarily contradict
my "höi"-as-chomeur-marker analysis, although they do add an
interesting twist to the puzzle.

>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).
>> 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.
Good!

>> 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).
I'm not sure what your motivation is for giving these examples,
since you provide no commentary.  They're not really relevant to
the example I gave, since they're not double-object constructions.
A double-object construction is one in which both the direct
and indirect object are unmarked for case, or are marked with
the same case.  In your Géarthnuns examples, the indirect object
is marked with dative case and the direct object with accusative
case.  The direct object is clearly not a chomeur in this type of
construction.

Dative constructions:

   give  NP-DAT  NP-ACC  (neither NP is a chomeur)

Double-object constructions:

   give  NP-ACC  NP-ACC  (the second NP is a chomeur)

Now, what would *really* prove my case would be if
Géarthnuns had an alternate ditransitive construction
like this:

   John-NOM  AUX  Bill-ACC  höi  book-ACC  give

--in which there is no way to make "book-ACC" the subject of
a passive sentence.  But I don't suppose there is any such
construction...

>> 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?
Can you form passive nominalisations in Géarthnuns?  If
not, then these examples are irrelevant:  Direct objects of
nominalised verbs weould be chomeurs in Géarthnuns but not
in English.  (My guess is that you cannot form passivised
nominalisations in Géarthnuns, since the passivisation
operation is linked to the AUX system, and nominalisations
don't include an auxiliary.  Am I right?)

Matt.