Re: GROUPLANG : POLL2 (Re: cases, modifiers, pronouns)

Mathias M. Lassailly wrote:
>
>1. The following cases have been most suggested :
>
>1.1. Cases used with verb-rooted predicates :
>
>- ergative = transitive nominative ERG=TNOM : erg-me to-be-red = I redden
>(him); erg-me to-rise = I raise;
>erg-me bite = I bite.
>
>- absolutive = undergoer = intransitive nominative ABS=UND=INOM : abs-me
>to-rise = I rise; abs-me to-be-red =
>I am/become red.
>
>Nota : this is not a genuine absolutive which should be passive as in Basque as in :
>abs-me to-be-cut = I'm cut => erg-me abs-it to-be-cut = I cut it.
>
>- patientive = accusative PAT=ACC : pat-me to-bite = I'm bitten.
>
>- causative CAUS : caus-me erg-he red = I have him redden (something); caus-me
>erg-he fall = I have him fell;
>erg-me food = I apply food = I feed (someone).
>
>- dative DAT : dat-me to-give = I'm given (a gift).
>
>1.1. Cases used with noun-rooted predicates :
>
>- agentive AGE : age-me stream = I stream; age-me club = I beat; age-me gift =
>I'm given (as a gift); age-me
>image = I'm seen.
>
>- ergative ERG : erg-me red = I apply red on him; erg-me fall = I apply fall
>on him = I make him fall; erg-me
>hammer = I apply hammer = I hammer (with a tool).
>
>- patientive PAT : pat-me red = I'm applied red colour; pat-me club = I'm
>clubbed; pat-me eye = I'm looked at.
>
>- absolutive ABS : abs-me eye = abs-image = I see; abs-seat = I sit; abs-me
>fruit : I bear fruit; abs-me rise
>= I rise; abs-me gift = I'm given (a gift).
>
>- attributive ATT : att-me home = I live in (a cave); att-me brother = I've a
>brother; att-me ears = I've
>ears; att-me smoke = I (release) smoke; etc.
>
>- causative CAUS : caus-me erg-he red = I have him redden; caus-me erg-he fall
>= I have him fell something.
I agree on all of this, with some reserves...

1. What's the difference between "erg-me fall" and "caus-me fall"?
(I guess the latter one should not imply you did it on purpose.)
Plus, is it "erg-me pat-him fall" or "erg-me abs-him fall"? (I guess
the second one... "abs-him fall" means "he falls")

2. I don't like "abs-me eye" for "I see". And "abs-me gift" I would
prefer to translate as "I am a gift" (which is not the same as "I'm given")



>
>1.3. Case used with arguments :
>
>- genitive GEN : dog gen-me / gen-me dog  = my dog
>
>2. Suggested degrees of integration were :
>
>- thema + rhema (topic) THEM + RHEM : them-(abs)-dog red = the dog, she's red;
>OR dog red = the dog, (she's)
>red.
>
>- argument + predicate + ARG + PRED : erg-dog pat/acc-me bite = dog bites me.
>
>- modifier + noun / modifier + predicate = MOD + NOUN/PRED : mod-red dog = red
>dog; erg-me mod-hard bite = I
>bite hard.
>
>- phrase + determinant / noun + determinant = PHR/NOUN + DET : det-pat-me bite
>dog = the dog who bites me.
>
>- clause + relative + sub-clause = CL + REL + SUBCL : dog erg-it pat-me bite =
>the dog who bites me / the dog
>biting me; dog abs-it red = red dog; erg-dog pat-me abs-which hard bite = dog bites me hard.
I agree on most of these. I prefer to have determination expressed by
other means, maybe as a suffix (here, in the DOG).

>
>3. Suggested pronouns were :
>
>3.1. Personal pronouns (spacial deixis - no genders discussed here) :
>
>- 1, 2, 3, 3bis
>- 1sg, 1pl, 2sg, 2pl, 3sg, 3pl
>- 1incl, 1excl, 2incl, 2excl, 3
>- polite-less-polite-even-less-polite
>etc.
>
I vote for 1incl, 1excl, 2incl, 2excl, 3,
with an optional marker of politeness. (Maybe we could
have another one for anti-politeness or despise!)


>3.2. Relative/resumptive pronouns (syntactic deixis) :
>
>latter/former/next one : dog erg-last_one pat-me bite = dog who bites me
>latter/this/next fact : erg-dog abs-this_fact hard pat-me bite = dog bites me hard; arg-dog
>pat-me bite att-
>latter_fact hard = dog bites me hard.
I don't like this usage completely. Maybe for more complicated
sentences.

>
>Please make your choice and comments on items 1.1 through 3.2.
>
>Suggested next step : postpositions/adverbal subclause; word-order in subclause;
>genders/classifiers; derived
>nouns, state/action nouns ('the one bitten', 'the maker', 'the fact of eating');
>aspects, moods ('want to',
>'can', 'must', etc.) tenses, negative; for verb-rooted predicates : passive, (antipassive ?).
I think we should have the moods suggested (want to, can, must),
plus two conditional ("if") moods: "If I do" (it's probable that
I do, so...) and "If I did" (it's not certain that I will do, it
depends).

Each mood should be a prefix of the verb; and each one should
have a negative form. Plus, a suffix could negate the verb itself.
This to avoid ambiguities such as "I must not escape" (I must not
escape OR I don't have to escape).
I know it's not ambiguous in English, but only because we use
"have to". This way we could say "I cannot not see" ("I can't help
but see").


--Pablo Flores