Re: Why Triggers?

Christophe wrote:
> En réponse à Vasiliy Chernov <bc_@...>:
>
> >
> > I think it's easier to understand if you rewrite your examples as
> > follows:
> >
> > 1) I {am the one who gives} a bone to the dog.
> > 2) The dog {is the being who the bone is given to} by me.
> > 3) The bone {is what is given} by me to the dog.
> >
> > Also various things like e. g.:
> >
> > 4) The house {is the place where the act of giving is in progress} of
> > the bone to the dog by me.
> >
> > What stands in brackets conveys the litteral meaning of the respective
> > form of the verb.
> >
> > If I understand it correctly, all sentences in a trigger language must
> > use a form like the above.
> >
>
> Indeed. One conlanger (who was it already? it was a discussion that happened
> more than two years ago IIRC) had the interesting theory that in trigger
> languages all sentences were nominal with an understated 'is', and that the
> verb was in fact a derived noun, which was equated to the trigger, like in the
That was ME!!!! I've been on lurk mode for a very very long time. Old-timers
here know that trigger systems is my cup of tea. But somehow I missed the recent
discussions on trigger systems. <curses!>

> examples you give. Interestingly, this idea is very good to explain trigger
> languages (though one can argue whether trigger languages are really verbless).
The theory I had did not state that trigger languages were verbless.
It stated that they indeed have verbs, but that whenever they are
used they are always nominalized. E.g.; "eat" becomes "eater" for actor
trigger; "eat" becomes "the eaten/the food" for patient trigger; "eat"
becomes "eating place" for location trigger; etc.

> At least, it fitted the facts quite well (from what I know of Tagalog, the
> subject in nominal sentences is marked like the trigger in verbal ones, thus
> the idea that trigger sentences are essentially nominal fits quite well).
I'm not a native Tagalog speaker, but I know enough of it (being part
Filipino) to confirm that Tagalog sentences are essentially nominal.

> Note that this idea wouldn't fit in my Itakian, though it's a trigger language.
> In this language, sentences using the trigger have quite a different structure
> from nominal sentences (the trigger and the subject are not marked the same,
> and that's only the smallest difference).
The fact that sentences using the trigger and ordinary nominal sentences
essentially have the same structure in Tagalog is enough to convince me.

I don't claim to be the authority on trigger systems, and I don't claim
that the theory is 100% applicable to real-life West Austronesian langs.
But I use it anyways because it is what I use as the keystone to build a
unique grammar for my conlang -- Boreanesian. Whether it applies to
real-life West Austronesian langs is besides the point. My concern is to
make Boreanesian naturalistic yet unique, and I think I managed to do that
by applying the theory to Boreanesian quite literally.

-kristian- 8)

Reply