Re: verb-noun-incorporation mania

On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 10:29:26PM -0800, Jesse Bangs wrote:
[snip]
> In the previous example, you have the word <elww'maba>, glossed as
> "I-carrying," where the 1sg pronoun is marked in the instrumental case.
> The verb "carry" indicates that the associated 1sg morpheme is the
> conveyor of the action rather than the originator.  However, the
> instrumental case of the pronoun does the exact same thing.  Why are both
> necessary?  Likewise, if the verb "given" indicates that the incorporated
> noun "she" is the recipient of the action, why do you include the
> recipient case marking?
Well, perhaps I didn't make things obvious enough. It *is* necessary to
still mark the incorporated noun for case -- for example, the verb
_lww'ma_ means "to carry", but the attached noun could be the carrier or
the thing which is being carried. For example, if I mark the 1sg pronoun
in the conveyant case instead:
        chi'd0  elww'm3b3        byyjhojobu'.
        he(org) carrying-me(cvy) give-to-her(rcp)
        "He, carrying me, gave me to her."

Totally different meaning :-)

Similarly, _byyjhojobu'_ needs to be marked in the receptive case;
otherwise it is unclear whether it's the giver, the recipient, or the
gift. The verb itself only conveys the meaning of "giving", it does not
imply the role of the attached noun. If it were marked in the originative
case, it would imply that "she" is the giver, not the recipient, of the
act of giving.

> Splitting apart the noun cases and the verb incorporation, there seem to
> be two options.  In one, you only need one verb, but you exhaustively
> mark the cases of the nouns.
>
> He(org) 1sg(instr) red-flowers(cvy) 3sgf(rcp) give
>
> Everything is clear in that case.
*nod* Such a sentence is completely valid in the language, and in fact,
means exactly the same thing. The verb incorporation is just a way to make
it more graphic :-) (Which is why I noted that it's probably a participial
construction).

>  However, there's another case where
> you use serial verbs and incorporation to indicate the same thing, but
> don't use cases at all:
>
> He-send flowers-go I-carry she-get
>
> Right now you're doing both.  That's redundant in a way that I don't
> think any natlang is.
Well, as I said, it isn't really that redundant. Maybe a contrived example
would help clarify things:

1)      `ybyy'jh3m30       3kac33'.
        give-mother(org)   red-flower(plur,cvy)
        "(My) mother gives red flowers (to whomever)."

2)      `ybyy'jhamaa       3kac33'.
        give-mother(instr)
        "(My) mother delivers red flowers."

3)      `ybyy'jh3ma3       3kac33'.
        give-mother(cvy)
        "(My) mother was given along with the red flowers." (Whatever that
        means... :-P)

4)      `ybyy'jhamai       3kac33'.
        give-mother(loc)
        "Red flowers were given around(?) (my) mother." (Perhaps, "red
        flowers were strewn around my mother"? This one is a bit odd :-P)

5)      `ybyy'jhamau       3kac33'.
        give-mother(rcp)
        "(My) mother was given red flowers."

Hopefully it's abundantly clear that the case marking is still necessary,
at least *some* of the time. :-)

[snip]
> Right.  I like the case system, but it makes the verb-incorporation
> superfluous.
[snip]

Except perhaps as an embellishment to allow one to be more graphic in
one's description of things? :-)


T

--
Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's
character, give him power. -- Abraham Lincoln

Reply