Re: going without "without"

On Tue, 17 Aug 1999, Irina Rempt-Drijfhout wrote:

> > (Note that the instrumental is also used to indicate concepts like
> > "through", and "via".  In general, it is used to indicate objects
> > and locations which act as intermediaries between the actor and
> > the goal/patient in an action.  E.g., the knife acts as an
> > intermediary between John and the bread by actually performing
> > the act of cutting, as a result of John's manipulating it.)
> > The comitative case (marked by the suffix "-a" or "-ia" on the
> > noun) is used to indicate a participant who is accompanying
> > another participant in an action, or an instrument which is
> > aiding in the performance of an action.  For example:
> >
> >   Ma    puniei            pule        inak    Tsiona
> >   I.Erg travelled-the.Dat village-Dat the.Com John-Com
> >   "I travelled to the village with John"
> >
> >   Na      luiha     eta  ypena
> >   the.Erg old.woman walk stick-Com
> >   "The old woman walks with a stick"
>
> It's clear enough up to the example with John, but why does the old
> woman walking with a stick use the comitative and not the
> instrumental? Isn't the stick acting as an intermediary between the
> woman and her walking? I admit that it's not the stick that does the
> actual walking, but she's using it as a tool, not only for company.
You put your finger on the key point when you mention that the
stick isn't walking:  That's what the distinction is based on.

The rule is as follows:  If the instrument actually performs the
action denoted by the verb, then you use the instrumental.  If
the instrument merely facilitates the performance of the action,
then you use the comitative.  For instance, "John cut the meat
with the fork" entails "The fork cut the meat", so "fork" would
appear in the instrumental.  On the other hand, "John ate the
meat with the fork" does NOT entail "The fork ate the meat", so
"fork" would appear in the comitative.  You can think of the
difference as being one of 'degree of agency'.  In "John cut
the meat with the fork", John and the fork are in some sense
'co-agents' in the act of cutting.  John is the one who's in
control of the event, but the fork can nevertheless be viewed
as the actual 'doer' of the action.  In "John ate the meat with
the fork", however, the fork is playing a more peripheral role.
John is the only participant that actually 'does' any eating;
the fork merely helps out (a supporting player, if you like).

Of course, there are borderline cases:  Does "John opened the
door with the key" entail "The key opened the door"?  Depends on
what sense of "open" you have in mind.  I think in this case you
could use either the instrumental or the comitative, but with
slightly different senses.  Suppose that John unlocks the door
with the key, puts it in his pocket, and then pushes the door
open.  In that case I would use the comitative, since the key
is merely facilitating the opening of the door.  However, suppose
that John turns the key in the lock and the door immediately
swings open.  In that case I might use the instrumental instead,
since here there is a more direct cause-and-effect relationship
between the action of the key and the opening of the door.

If the instrumental case had been used instead of the comitative
in the sentence you quote, it would probably be interpreted as
meaning "The old woman walks along the stick" (e.g. the stick
is lying on the ground and the woman is walking along its length)
or "The old woman walks across on the stick" (e.g. the stick is
a makeshift bridge across a chasm and the woman is using it to
cross over).  As it stands, the sentence could of course mean
that the old woman and the stick are walking side by side, but
that alternative interpretation is semantically bizarre, and would
probably not occur to the average Tokana-speaker except in the
context of a joke.  (Tokana is chock full of lexical and structural
ambiguity, but just as in natlangs, much of the ambiguity is defused
by context...)

Matt.