Re: Poijpohloneny

>From: Henrik Theiling <theiling@...>
>Subject:      Re: [CONLANG] Poijpohloneny
>
>Hi!
>
>"M. Astrand" <ysimiss@...> writes:
>>...
>> >Are these all copula uses in Finnisch?
>>
>> If the verb in "The book is on the table" is not a copula, then the one
>in
>> "Kadulla on yksi koira" 'There is one dog on the street' shouldn't be
either,
>> as they both equally indicate location.
>> To be sure that I have understood the copula thing correctly: is _become_
>> a copula, too?
>
>Well, I wanted to know whether that is the case in Finnish, too,
>because I had the impression that in German, it's a bit different.
Your argument appears to be that in German, _sein_ in sentences like this
may be replaced by _scheinen_, where the same can't be done in English with
_be_ and _seem_. But doesn't this just mean that _seem_ and _scheinen_ have
slightly different syntactic structures rather than that there is some difference
between _be_ and _sein_?
(I'm sorry - my German is horribly rusty, and my comments may also otherwise
just be showing a vast amount of ignorance. :)

>So
>I would not think it's universally a copula in that sentence.  You
>could theoretically analyse 'is' in 'the book is on the table' in two
>ways:
>
>   a) 'is' is a locative full verb
>      (which, I learnt, is the case in English)
>
>   b) 'is' is a copula and 'on the table' is a predicate (like 'red'
>      can be and 'a man', too) that is transformed into a verb phrase
>      with this copula.  I argued that I think this is the case for
>      German.
>
>Indications for b) would be that other copulas work, like 'bleiben' in
>German.  But not all copulas need to work.  'become' = 'werden' in
>German does not work there, although it *is* a copula.
How is _bleiben_ a copula? To me it seems to be a full verb of location more
clearly than _sein_.

>> >And is the following a good
>> >sentence:
>> >
>> >  ?Min? olen.
>>
>> I don't know.
>
>Hmm... :-)
>
>> (It would, of course, be perfectly good if it was actually a copula with
>> context, as in "Is someone a doctor here?" - "I am".)
>
>Well, there it is a copula, but you can only judge from the previous
>sentence.  In 'Is the book on the table?' - 'It is.' it would be a
>full verb.  Elliptical use in both cases, but of a different kind.
Yes. The point was, the sentence must be elliptical in one way or another
to be completely acceptable.

>> "I think, therefore I am";
>> "Ajattelen, siis olen."
>> think-1SG, ergo be-1SG
>
>Thanks!!  :-))))
>
>Seems that 'olla' may be used as a full verb, too. :-)
>
[snip the cogito translated to an unpronounceable language whose evidentiality
markers Descartes would have loved]

>> And anyway, much rather than "Min? olen" 'I am' I too would say "Min?
olen
>> olemassa" 'I exist', if that was what was meant.
>
>Yes, I meant that.  Literally, that's 'I am at (in the state of) being'
right?

"I am in being", yes, but _olla olemassa_ is one lexicalised unit, even though
it is not hard to analyse.

>Hmm...
>
>The translation of 'cogito, ergo sum' seems to trigger off problems in
>most languages.
Indeed. You perhaps shouldn't use that one as an example.

>**Henrik

- M. Astrand
"Neeba." - "Teeba?" - "Qeesvefar la:lka." - "Djo:ly."
"Guess what?" - "What?" - "I've learned how to speak." - "Great."

_____________________________________________________________
Kuukausimaksuton nettiyhteys: http://www.suomi24.fi/liittyma/
Yli 12000 logoa ja soittoääntä: http://sms.suomi24.fi/

Reply