Re: THEORY: When is a verb not a verb?
|From:||David J. Peterson <dedalvs@...>|
|Date:||Monday, January 28, 2008, 0:51|
I suspect that the label 'verbal specifier' used for similar things in
Inuktitut also makes reference to other properties that they have,
based on the particular theory of morpho-syntax used to describe their
behavior (for me, the word 'specifier' is a code-word for
principles-and-parameters style syntax). So before adopting the label
Uinlitska, it might be helpful to see what else they do in Inuktitut.
One would assume P&P, but your guess is as good as mine:
That's the website of the author. The terminology in the books
I have are completely and utterly foreign to me. For example,
his description of words in the language fall into four categories:
(1) Object Words (themselves divided into Syntactic Functions: subject,
terminalis, vialis, localis, similaris, etc.); (2) Action Words (with
traditional verbal terminology); (3) Quality Words; and (4) Localizers.
If this is a part of a specific theory or program, it's one I have
no experience with.
In fact, looking over the book again, I don't see the word "specifier"
anyway, leading me to believe that I either got it from somewhere
else, or just made it up. I'm leaning towards the latter. I may have,
indeed, borrowed the term from P&P (if I did, it would lead me to
believe that I intended for *all* words in Epiq to have at least one
specifier, but this is not the case).
In the book I have, everything is simply lumped into a gigantic
section called "suffixes". There are more than 100 pages of suffixes
for Inuktitut, each of which apply to a different base (object, action
or quality words). So, for examples:
(1) -aluk: "old"; used with object word bases.
(2) -anik-: "to have already"; used with action word bases.
(3) -giit-: "to have a poor, bad, ugly X"; used with body parts.
(4) -haaqhi-: "to be about to"; used with action word bases.
(5) -huliq-: "to have become willing to X"; used with action word bases.
(6) -qan: "partner, companion in X-ing"; used with action word bases.
(7) -qpak-: "very"; used with quality word bases.
(8) -tchiaq-: "to get a new X"; used with object word bases.
(9) -tilaaq-: "to measure the extent of something in X"; used with
quality word bases.
(10) -vaalluk-: "to do for the first time after not having done so in
awhile"; used with action word bases.
So, as you can see, calling all of these "suffixes" is a bit misleading
(especially if the infix markings are correct there). This is the type
of book this is, though, and so you have to take what you can get.
Some of these are simply derivational affixes (e.g. 6); some of
them appear to be TMA marking (e.g. 2, 5, 10); some seem to
be like adjectives/adverbs (e.g. 1, 7); and some work like what
we've been talking about, with fewer or greater restrictions
depending on the semantics (e.g. 2 and 8).
Anyway, it appears these books are written with the intention
of defining the languages in terms of itself. The information is
there, which is all I care about, but it can be a bit confusing when
one tries to generalize from the data. In the case of the "suffixes"
that incorporate, some are restricted in their function (as your
description of the Shoshoni "to have X"), but most do not, and
seem to just be treated as verbs. In the case of the latter, perhaps
what we have is simply a unique derivational affix.
"sunly eleSkarez ygralleryf ydZZixelje je ox2mejze."
"No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn."
On Jan 27, 2008, at 3∞11 PM, Dirk Elzinga wrote:
> Shoshoni has a couple of these as well. But the available
> descriptions vary
> in calling them incorporating verbs (Crum and Dayley 1993) and
> suffixes (Miller 1996). As an example, adding -pai to a noun stem
> results in
> a verb meaning 'have N':
> kahni 'house'
> kahnipai 'have a house'
> The verb 'kahnipai' is deficient in that it does not allow the full
> range of
> tense and aspect suffixes one would expect with a verb, so it's a
> verb ...
> sort of.
> I suspect that the label 'verbal specifier' used for similar things in
> Inuktitut also makes reference to other properties that they have,
> based on the particular theory of morpho-syntax used to describe their
> behavior (for me, the word 'specifier' is a code-word for
> principles-and-parameters style syntax). So before adopting the
> label for
> Uinlitska, it might be helpful to see what else they do in Inuktitut.
> On Jan 27, 2008 3:22 PM, David J. Peterson <dedalvs@...> wrote:
>> These are what are called in languages like Inuktitut verbal
>> specifiers. By themselves, they are not verbs, because you can't
>> use them like verbs. When /-hita/ combines with /minan/, the
>> result is a verb. A verbal specifier seems like a nice enough
>> name. For a discussion in one of my languages, you can go here:
>> "sunly eleSkarez ygralleryf ydZZixelje je ox2mejze."
>> "No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn."
>> -Jim Morrison
>> On Jan 27, 2008, at 2∞14 PM, Paul Bennett wrote:
>>> On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 16:30:00 -0500, David J. Peterson
>>> <dedalvs@...> wrote:
>>>> A general reply: Can you show some concrete examples? That's
>>>> the first thing I would look for if I were a field linguist. :)
>>> For the verbs in question, -m (to be able to use X) and -hīta (to
>>> fetch X (to go and get X from somewhere else))...
>>> uínlītska /wi:nli~tSkA/ - the Uínlītska language
>>> uínlītskam /wi:nli~tSkAm/ - *"to be able to speak" Uínlītska
>>> intuínlītskam /indwui:nlitSkam/ - I can speak Uínlītska
>>> uínlītskamu /wi:nlitSkamo/ - He can speak Uínlītska
>>> uilī intuínlītskam - I will be able to speak Uínlītska
>>> hafā intuínlītskam - I have been taught (lit. I have been able)
>>> to speak Uínlītska
>>> ú intuínlītskam - I was able to speak Uínlītska
>>> mínan /mi:nan/ - berries
>>> mínanhīta /mi:nanxi~tA/ - *"to fetch" berries
>>> inmínanhīta /inmi:nanxi~tA/ - I am fetching berries
>>> mínanhītu /mi:nanxi~tu/ - he is fetching berries
>>> uilī inmínanhīta - I will fetch berries
>>> hafā inmínanhīta - I have fetched berries
>>> ú inmínanhīta - I was fetching berries
>>> Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/
> Miapimoquitch: Tcf Pt*p+++12,4(c)v(v/c) W* Mf+++h+++t*a2c*g*n4 Sf+++