Re: THEORY: Tukang Besi (was Re: THEORY: Cross-Referencing the Arguments of Consecutive Verbs, And Similar Things)

Roger wrote:
<<
Another distinction between the two sentences-- which I don't see
mentioned-- is that (1a) has indefinite object; (2a) definite.
 >>

You know, I never noticed that.  One thing is that this was intended
to be a talk for undergraduates, so he may have left out any mention
of this on purpose.  Had I noticed, I would've asked, but I didn't--
which
is odd, since in the pragmatics class I was taking that quarter, all we
talked about was differences in definiteness, etc. as they related to
discourse status.  And just like indefinites are restricted in their
distribution in English, maybe that's why you get the strict word
order with the (1a) example, which has an indefinite object.

(Example from English: ??A bird is big.  It's grammatical, to be
sure, but it sounds just awful.)

This is the example I'm referring to:
> (1)
> (a) Ku'ita te ana (na iaku).  /1sg.-see ACC. child (NOM. I)/ "I saw a
> child."
> (b) *Ku'ita na iaku te ana.  For same.  [word order = VOS]
Anyway, Roger, if after you've looked over the handout and the paper
you want to give any notes on what you think, or compare them to
other nat (or con) langs, I'm sure it would be much appreciated.  :)

Incidentally, check it out: Mark has conlanged in the past!  And I
had no idea while he was here.

http://courses.nus.edu.sg/course/ellmd/weblinks.html

It's like the second main paragraph on his page about linguistics,
which is interesting, given all the work he's done, and that he
apparently doesn't conlang anymore.  Unfortunately, the link to
his conlang is broken.

-David
*******************************************************************
"A male love inevivi i'ala'i oku i ue pokulu'ume o heki a."
"No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn."

-Jim Morrison

http://dedalvs.free.fr/