Phaleran (was: Re: Nur-ellen)
|From:||daniel andreasson <daniel.andreasson@...>|
|Date:||Thursday, August 10, 2000, 16:19|
I believe this message and the next from Tom Wier were intended
for the entire list so I'm forwarding them. / Daniel
daniel andreasson wrote:
> > With verbs of perception, dative distinguished cursory perception
> > from intentional observation, as in
> Just like Tokana, iirc. (I'm just waiting for Matt Pearson to join this
> thread. :) ).
Pûllu eoksoi gethasyonti
boy:ERG 3pS:ACC see:TR:3pSPf:SEN
The boy looked at him.
Pûwo eoksoi gethasyonti
boy:DAT 3pS:ACC see:TR:3pSPf:SEN
The boy saw him.
Speaking of Phaleran, I'm thinking I'd like to change Phaleran verbal
agreement. Comrie mentioned in his book on language universals that it is
usually the case, with a few notable exceptions like Indo-European, that
cross-referencing systems grammaticalize both subject and object onto
the verb. The problem with this is that Phaleran is an ergative language,
which complicates things. Right now Phaleran's verbal cross-referencing
is pretty much a Standard Average European system, which means that
it grammaticalizes subjects whether in S or A function. I don't like this
situation, because it's (a) boring, and (b) doesn't encapsulate yet another
language universal. So, should I have
(1) a fully-fledged ergative marking for verbs (that is, just drop the CX with S),
which would be easier in terms of going back and changing all the paradigms
(this seems to be really more a definitional issue)
(2) a split-ergative system. It seems to me this would require also a third
coreference, that of the IO, because Phaleran morphology otherwise makes
ditransitives rather central.
What do y'all think?
Tom Wier | "Cogito ergo sum, sed credo ergo ero."