Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: HELP: Is this sensible?

From:Henrik Theiling <theiling@...>
Date:Wednesday, March 17, 2004, 2:44
Hi!

Waah: my internet connection was broken for more than three hours!  I
hardly survived this...

Carsten schrieb:
> Thanks, but I've got another question on what you wrote: > > [...] It depends on how you assign agent and patient. If the > assignment is highly lexicalised, you could do anything. [...] > > What do you mean with "lexicalized" here?
By this I meant if the lexicon entry for most verbs gives you a fixed case-assignment phrase around it, then the assignment of cases would be highly lexicalised. You could look up the word 'to be strange' and the lexicon would say that the one how is strange in a sentence would be assigned case X. In contrast to that, your language could be highly based on rules that apply to every verb. In such a language, the assignment of case for the same verb could be different from sentence to sentence, and it could also be regularly inferred. E.g. in the case of 'to be strange', my Tyl Sjok allows two assignments: Paul.AGT strange. = Paul is (~behaves) strange. (he is in control) Strange Paul.PAT = Paul is strange. (inherently, he is not in control) It's simply a matter of definition in your grammar. If the assignment is lexicalised, you can make it as chaotic as you like, of course. :-)
>... > who does something is the agent and the one who is affected is the > patient. >...
If your language is supposed to regularly assignment agent and patient, not by definition in the lexicon, defining that the agent is 'doing' something would probably not be enough for clarification of case assignment. Have a look at the distinction in the following sentences: Peter dries. Peter falls. Peter sneezes. Peter speaks. Peter runs. In English, you could argue that for each of these sentences, the answer to the question 'What does Peter *do*?' is the verb. But this is simply because Peter is the subject of each of these sentences and by asking for the doer, you ask for the subject. It is a recursive definition. In this case, your case assignment should be equal to that of English, which, I'm sure, you do not want, since adjectives can select different cases in your language. If you decide to use assignment by control, the first two examples select patientive case, while the latter two would select agentive case. The one in the middle may select P or A, depending on language, speaker or situation. :-) You could use other things than control for a definition. For Tyl-Sjok, I use a system very close to Central Pomo's, but with simplified rules (IIRC, Central Pomo assigns by control, but not if the controller is personally affected, I think). Other reasons for assignment of agentive case could be state vs. event, or volition or performance/effect/instigation (PEI). You might want to check out the archives for discussions of this. Usually Daniel Andreasson and Marcus Smith write nice descriptions about active languages. E.g.: http://listserv.brown.edu/archives/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0005A&L=conlang&P=R17644 http://listserv.brown.edu/archives/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0102B&L=conlang&P=R1214
>... > you will see adjectives are marked depending on whether their noun > is (agent, ) patient or something else ("oblique"). >...
Hmm, assigning oblique case seems strange to be. Having looked at your web-page, I understand that your language is supposed to be similar to Tagalog's trigger system. The one book about Tagalog that I have suggests that it has three cases which are called nominative, genitive and dative/locative there. It also dependents on the trigger (called voice in that book, which seems odd). It seems Tagalog has active, benefactive, dative/locative, instrumental and objective triggers, the active one being the default (without ending). Depending on the trigger (on the verb), the nominative fills the thematic role the trigger is named by and the other supplements seem to be reassigned by some rules, too. :-) It gives interesting examples illustrating the trigger system: a) B-um-ili ang=lalake ng=isda sa=tindahan. PERF.AT-buy NOM=man GEN=fish DAT=store The MAN bought fish at the store. b) B-in-ili ng=lalake ang=isda sa=tindahan. PERF-buy-OT GEN=man NOM=fish DAT=store The man bought FISH at the store. c) B-in-ilh-an ng=lalake ng=isda ang=tindahan. PERF-buy-DT GEN=man GEN=fish NOM=store The man bought fish at the STORE. d) Ip-in-am-bili ng=lalake ng=isda ang=pera. IT-PERF-buy GEN=man GEN=fish NOM=money The man bough fish WITH the money. e) I-b-in-ili ng=lalake ng=isda ang=bata. BT-PERF-buy GEN=man GEN=fish NOM=child The man bough fish FOR the child. AT=active trigger OT=objective trigger DT=dative/locative trigger IT=instrumental trigger BT=benefactive trigger The book does not say how the active/objective triggers are used for intransitive verbs, but from the name 'nominative' I conclude that Tagalog is not split-S, but nominative/accusative, the accusative function being taken of what is called genitive in my book. This is a wild guess, though. Your language seems to be different in structure, in that it has as case what Tagalog has as triggers. Hmm. This is long again. Sorry. Bye, Henrik