Re: Triggeriness ...

Quoting Barry Garcia <barry_garcia@...>:

> Constructed Languages List <CONLANG@...> writes:
> >No, but you belong to the same category.
>
> Yes, but we're *not* the same thing, which is what you suggest when saying
> "why not call them cases?"
Nominative and ergative aren't the same thing either, but nonetheless they're
both cases. But I don't think this simile is getting us any further.

> >> If you want to be liberal, we can say all languages have case. However
> >i'm
> >> speaking of explicit case, not implied.
> >
> >That was not clear. Still, the Tagalog trigger does look like an explicit
> >case
> >marker.
>
> It's pretty clear to me: Explicit - obvious, implied - not obvious.
Would you consider English's syntactically indicated cases to be explicit or
implied?

> What "case" is the marker then?
I'm told it's called "trigger". I could expand on this, but Javier has already
written at length on it, so I guess there's no need.

> I see a difference between something that marks which word is emphasized
> and one that tells you the role of the word in relation to others.
But the trigger marker _does_ help indicate the noun's role; it indicates this
is the noun whose exact function is clarified by the verb's voice marking.
Much like an English nominative, infact.

[snip]
> >Actually, case affixes indicate how the noun arguments relate to the
> >_verb_
> >(how else could you have case affixes in intransitive sentences without
> >oblique arguments?).
>
> OK. But they also indicate relation to each other, right? If not, then you
> may want to update the fine folks on the linguistics mailing list.
Well, in the case of a verb with multiple arguments (transitives, in effect),
they do of course indirectly, via the verb, relate NPs to one another.

(Non-core cases are of course somewhat of a different story; your average
possessive does not relate directly to the verb, for instance.)

> >I can imagine a noun having a trigger marker, or not having a trigger
> >marker,
> >but _neither_? I would not believe that when I saw it with my own eyes!
>
> Neither = prepositions.
We're talking past one another here, aren't we? Read what I wrote again;
certainly there is no way a preposition could press a noun into the
paradoxical position of simultaneously not having and not not having a trigger
marker. It's simply a logical impossibility.

But I suspect what you originally tried to say was not that Tagalog grammar
defies logic. You meant something along the lines that a Tagalog noun can have
a trigger marker, another adposition, or neither?

> >I think you should update your understanding of "case".
>
> OK then Andreas, since you'be been rallying so hard to convince me that it
> is case, then explain in *simple terms* as best you can what case is
> *exactly*. Keep the terminology simple, keep it plain.
If you want an _exact_ definition of case, I'm afraid you will have to ask
someone with a linguistic education.

But let's try a loose one: Every verb requires a number of arguments (which
may be zero), which specify which are the participitants of the action (or
state) described by the verb. "Case" is the assigning of particular NPs to
particular argument slots.

(Again, this goes primarily for core cases.)

> >Again, I don't know Tagalog, but from the descriptions and examples by
> >you and
> >others in this thread, it looks like a lang that's grammaticalized
> >emphasis,
> >and uses case marking to indicate it.
>
> And to me it has gramaticalized emphasis and uses markers to indicate
> which word is the focus or which is not.
I don't see how that conflicts with the interpretation of trigger as a case.

                                                             Andreas

Reply