Re: C'ali update: Split-S cross-referencing, agentive pivot

Thomas R. Wier <trwier@...> wrote:

> The primary changes have been the fleshing out of the cross-
> referencing system on verbs, which operates according to a
> Split-S system.  In terms of syntax, I will also describe
> the agentive pivot in C'ali.
The examples you gave are equally valid in Stálág, my latest
conlang. Stálág is a split-S language too, with verbs that
agree with their subject and (if present) their direct object
in person and number.

>   (4) The man saw the animal and [X=the man] ran off.
>   (5) *The man saw the animal and [X=the animal] ran off.
As in C'ali and unlike English, (4) would be ungrammatical
and (5) grammatical. Stálág however has six voice operators,
and there's one that could solve the problem, the antipassive,
which makes a vi-P (intransitive verb with patientive subject)
from a vt (transitive verb). In this case it would apply to
"ran off". The new meaning could be translated as "The man saw
the animal and was/became a runner-off", but the antipassive
is more of a pure syntactic, rather than semantic, device.

>    *"The woman died and [she] shot at the small game."
Same here on "shot". The antipassive cannot take a vi-A verb,
but it's easy to make vi-A > vt using another voice, the
applicative, with a particle that indicates allativity or
goal. I'm not sure whether "shoot" would be a vi-A or a vt
in Stálág, but you can also have the opposite of the
applicative voice applied, which is called "unergative"
and uses the same particles.

I've found it difficult to choose whether verbs with a
goal or destination (like "shoot", "give" and discourse
verbs) should be transitive or intransitive. That is,
should one prefer to have

    a) "speak" + Applicative voice (Goal) = "tell"
or  b) "tell" + Unergative voice (Goal) = "speak" ?

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this. I made up a structure
with three basic applicative particles which I'll call APP:OBJ,
APP:DAT and APP:ABL, and which works as follows:

    1. kapos 'A-speaks' (basic form)
    2. kappos 'A-says-P' (APP:OBJ = discourse topic = zero mark)
    3. gye kappos 'A-tells-P' (APP:DAT = hearer = |gye|)
    4. har kappos 'A-quotes-P' (APP:ABL = source = |har|)

The root is |kap-|, with gemination marking the applicative
voice, and APP:OBJ is a zero morpheme.

> I plan to work on voice-operations, such as antipassivization
> and passivization, which would get around this problem. Any questions,
> comments or criticisms?
Just one idea, though you probably figured it out already. Split-S
languages need *two* antipassives (one of them is the traditional,
ergative-language antipassive, and the other is my "unergative"),
or else you'll have to live with those unwieldy pivots. You can
avoid the unergative by making all verbs with goals intransitive,
but then you need something (the applicative voice) to add an
argument.

Another idea: an "inversive" voice that exchanges the patient
and an oblique complement of a vi-P, using applicative particles.

From...    man-P lives at that place-O
           "the man lives at that place"

You get... that place-P APP:LOC lives-INV [man-O]
           "that place is a living location [for the man]"

You can do all sorts of tricks using voices on top of other voices. :)

How do you manage perception verbs?


--Pablo Flores
  http://www.angelfire.com/ego/pdf/sp/index.html
  "No piensen que vine a traer la paz a la tierra;
   no vine a traer la paz, sino la espada. Vine a
   poner al hijo en contra de su padre, a la hija
   en contra de su madre, y a la nuera en contra de
   su suegra." -- Jesús [Mt 10, 34-35]

Reply