Re: attributive predicates in rinya
|From:||Marcus Smith <smithma@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, April 18, 2001, 17:09|
>I suppose the "transitive becomes intransitive" thingy isn't
>an issue thanks to the active alignment.
>Anyway. What would the phrase above be in Rinya? I suppose you
>could do something like the following:
>i) teno lönya mestau riw jonumbe le norea
> man:PAT REL:DIFF:DAT give:PASS book:PAT John:INSTR 3SG boring:PST
> 'The man who was given a book by John was boring.'
>where _lönya_ says that the relativized subject of the rel.clause
>has a different case than the main clause subject, but still
>refers to the same thing.
>lönya <- le + umlaut + DAT -nya
>This feels a bit ad hoc. Anyone has a better idea?
No, I think this works.
> > >The dative is used for have-phrases as well. Example (5) would
> > >then look like:
> > >
> > >(7) riw le eriwilenya edrinie le timie.
> > > book:PAT REL:PAT:SAME writer:DAT eloquent:PST 3SG red:PST
> > > 'The book who had an eloquent writer was red.'
> > I'm confused. Are you saying that the simple sentence "The book had an
> > eloquent writer" would be:
> > riw eriwilenya edrinie.
> > book:PAT writer:DAT eloquent:PST
> > It looks to me like "eloquent" is acting as the predicate of the sentence,
> > since it takes the tense marking. I would have guessed it meant something
> > like "The book is eloquent to the writer", or something like that.
>Well, I told you it was confusing. :) I interpret it as "The writer
>of the book was eloquent". The problem is that "have" constructions
>are done the same way as genitive relations.
So this is a dative of possession.
> > Seriously, how about possessor raising of some sort? When you raise the
> > possessor to be an argument of the verb, the former-possessor and
> > possessed have distinct roles, so could be treated accordingly. I'm going
> > to take a guess at the proper Rinya for my examples, but if I'm wrong,
> > just follow the glosses.
> > The sentence:
> > erivil riwenya edrinie
> > writer:PAT book:DAT eloquent:PST
> > 'The book's writer was eloquent.'
> > Becomes:
> > riw erivil edrinie
> > book:PAT writer:PAT eloquent:PST
> > 'The book's writer was eloquent' = 'The book has an eloquent writer'
> > The possessor has become the subject of the sentence. If there is any way
> > to be sure of the subject of the sentence (other than semantics), such
> > tests will point to "book" in cases like this. Some languages that do this
> > (such as Chickasaw and Mohawk) insert some kind of "benefactive" marking
> > that agrees with the raised possessor to show what happened.
> > Since the possessor is now the subject of the sentence, you can treat it
> > like one.
> > riw le erivil edrinie le timie
> > book:PAT REL:PAT:SAME writer:PAT eloquent:PST 3SG red:PST
> > 'The book which has an eloquent writer is red.'
>I like this very much! It has a kind of inherent simplicity to
>it, yet it's very elegant. I mean, it looks simple, but it's
>actually more complicated "behind the curtains". :)
It's one of my all-time favorite grammatical constructions.
>I haven't really been all clear what possessor raising is, but
>now I think I am. "Describing Morphosyntax" is an unbelievably
>useful book. And it had examples from Chickasaw! :)
Not surprising. Payne's MA advisor was Pam Munro, and that was about the
time Chickasaw scholarship was nearing its peak at UCLA.
>I think I'll go with the "book:PAT writer:PAT eloquent:PAST"
>version. If it turns out that it becomes blurry semantically
>and I need need a benefactive marker, I'll introduce one later.
>But I think context and semantics will make it clear anyway.
Well, Japanese does subject-possessor raising without using benefactive
marking, so you might be okay. It, of course, is a nominative-accusative
language, so the case issue isn't so complicated.
> > My suggestion would be to add a morpheme that changes a verb into
> > an adverbial. This could apply to simple words or to entire phrases.
> > Take, for example, a suffix like -ig (borrowed from a Pima morpheme
> > that appears in adverbs based on predicates).
> > I walked to school tired-ig.
> > 'I walked to school tiredly.'
> > I walked to school sing-ig.
> > 'I walked to school singing.'
> > I walked to schoool sing-ig a song.
> > 'I walked to school singing a song.'
> > Or to appply it to your example:
> > the dog:PAT [which:PAT:SAME browns] falls quick-ig.
>It feels so easy, too easy, to just make up yet another morpheme
>(YAM) :) but is probably what I have to do. Incidentally, _-ig_
>is a very common adjective forming suffix in Swedish. Take any
>noun, put _-ig_ to it and you have an adjective.
Pima also has a lot of adjectives ending in -ig. But I haven't found any
kind of productive process yet. I haven't really looked yet, though.
>Do you notice how Rinya gradually turns into a North American
>language? :P I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes noun-incorporating
>in a near future. ;)
North American languages are the coolest languages on Earth. That's why
Telek is heavily based on Chickasaw and Mohawk, with a slight dash of
Comanche. (It also has a bit of Ainu influence.) My other conlang Igassik
was meant to have few similarities to anything, but it has a pronoun system
reminiscent of Zapotec, and a morphology somewhat similar to Yokuts.
> > > > > 8. main=PAT rel=AGT -> _lyn_
> > > > > 9. main=PAT rel=PAT -> _le_ [ unmarked ]
> > > > > 10. main=AGT rel=AGT -> _lin_ [ most marked ]
> > > > > 11. main=AGT rel=PAT -> _ly_
> > One further comment on this system that hadn't occurred to me before. This
> > is conceptually very similar to switch-reference marking, like is found in
> > Chickasaw.
>Yes, I've had a similar thought in the back of my mind, though
>I don't really remember it all that well. I'll have to reread
>what I have on Chickasaw switch-reference marking.
There is a book edited by Haiman and Munro entitled "Switch-Reference and
Universal Grammar" that has lots of discussion of switch-reference in a
variety of languages.
> > Switch-reference is a property of the complementizer system (at
> > least in Muskogean languages). In GB syntax, relative pronouns are in that
> > system, so having switch-reference on the relativizer like you do seems a
> > very natural possibility.
>Oh no! Have I unconsciously supported GB syntax?!?! ;) Oh well. I'm
>sure there is an even better way of explaining this functionalistically.
There's more than one way to skin a cat.
Or, as we say in Telek:
"You can use water, or you can use sand."
"Sit down before fact as a little child,
be prepared to give up every preconceived notion,
follow humbly wherever and to whatsoever abysses Nature leads,
or you shall learn nothing."
-- Thomas Huxley