Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

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. :) ).
And Phaleran: 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." ======================================