----------
<Lassailly@...>
> Aan: Multiple recipients of list CONLANG <CONLANG@...>
> Onderwerp: Re : Re: Tlvn, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius
> Datum: woensdag 15 september 1999 14:06
>=20
> Dans un courrier dat=E9 du 15/09/99 11:41:30 , Rob a =E9crit :
>=20
> > I have a question regarding this subject. It is about two Lillooet (o=
r
> > Lil'wat?) sentences:
> > - tl'ak ti-nk'yap-a 'the coyote goes'
> japanese :
> koyotsu wa iku : 'the coyote goes'
>=20
> > - nk'yap ti-tl'ak-a 'the goer coyotes', 'he who
goes=20
> is=20
> > a coyote'
>=20
> japanese :
> iku (no) wa koyotsu da : 'he who goes is a coyote'
>=20
> > tl'ak =3D coyote
> > nk'yap =3D go
> > ti- =3D realis
> > -a =3D 3rd person
> > =20
>=20
> koyotsu : coyote
> iku : go
> wa : topic
> da : be =3D whatever person
>=20
> > When translating, I have to do strange things. I use the word 'goer'
and a
> > verb 'to coyote'.
>=20
> funny that : i do that with japanese and colloquial french too when i=20
> topicalize.
I think that the real difference indeed is about topic.
> you know what ? the whole trick in linguistics is to stick "-" at the
right=20
> spot.
Makes me think of a Native American band that putte hyphens between every
syllable, IIRC it ws something like 'chen-quo-cow-itz-en'. They probably
did so because they had seen Salish texts (made for linguists) with hyphe=
ns
all over the place. They probably thought Salsih texts had to be spelled
that way.
Still there is reason to use the hyphen here. "ti-nk'yap-a" is considered
one word. Of course we can have a discussion on 'what is a word'. As I sa=
id
before: French could be analysed as a Caucasian language if we define a
word as: a word can have only one syllable with primary stress.
> i mean, if japanese had the brilliant idea to write "iku wa-koyotsu-da"
and=20
> "koyotsu wa-iku" instead of "iku wa koyotsu da" and "koyotsu wa iku",
> then they would not tell verbs from nouns anymore.
Maybe they didn't do that because of stress? Maybe all the words are word=
s
on their own?
> -------
> 'To' coyote is not a verb.
> ------
> indeed, it's a noun.
> and i suggest "ti-" is not a verbal but a topic tag
> and "-a" is presentative/existential verb.
ti- is not a topic tag, that's -k0a (I'm doing this by memory, the form
could be different)
ti- (realis) is opposite of k0o- irrealis and marks aspect.
-a is 3rd person, opposed to -an 1st person
Still if we had only these two sentences, your analysis could very well d=
o.
>=20
> ------
> I must
> > verbalise it some way, like 'to be a coyote'.
>=20
> je hoeft niet. just use it as a noun like in : 'to be a coyote' ;-)
> does "to be" show the nature, the behaviour, the state, the
> diet of our furry friend ?
> please define in a few words the verb "to coyote".
>=20
> I see in the examples that
> > Lillooet does not need morphology or some other instrument to change
verbs
> > into nouns and v.v..
>=20
> english neither : hunt / hunt
> "verb" and "noun" are beyond morphology.
> i think we're not discussing the same topic.
>
English does. An English speaker must use the verb 'to be', or another
verbshow noature, behaviour etc..
=20
> and french is even better : it doesn't need morphem to topicalize !
> "c'est mon p=E8re le pompier".=20
> there is a nice french verb "to-be-my-father".
> which means that french doesn't make any difference between
> noun and verb. french beats everyone. the perfect ial, i tell you.
>=20
> That makes me think that Lillooet does not really
> > distinguish nouns from verbs.=20
>=20
> now i know french and japanese don't either.
> maybe we're all aliens creeping up the planet.
> watch out.
>=20
They do. French must use verbs, like English, Japanese uses "da".
> > Is my interpretation right? If yes, then Tom could be right.
> > What alternative interpretations are possible?
> > =20
> i dare not say.
>=20
> > I have to admit, I was shocked the first time I was this. I tried to
> > implement it into a conlang, but failed. It is too weird to me.
> > =20
> don't be afraid. that's only topicalization combined to
> (well-marketed) alienating hyphenation.
Not Only topicalisation, because that is done in an overtly (other) marke=
d
way.
> american linguists are trained businessmen.
> everything's BIG in america.
>=20
> mathias