Re: Miapimoquitch text: Eye Juggler (long)
|From:||Tim May <butsuri@...>|
|Date:||Friday, January 23, 2004, 13:32|
Dirk Elzinga wrote at 2004-01-21 08:31:15 (-0700)
> Hi everyone.
> So this is where the rubber hits the road (as my dad would
> say). I've been hinting around for a while now about the changes
> I've made to Miapimoquitch. Well, I spent the day yesterday
> translating a text -- it's a version of the Great Basin story "Eye
Masterful work. I'm always pleased to see Miapimoquitch material. I
have some questions.
Questions about the first clause:
> 1. [s1'piD1 ?i ?a'p1ja j1'hamm1Ga "1s1'p1G1~: ?i ?a'taBun1]
> sepite i apeya ehammeka esepeken i atapune
> se- pite i a= peya e= hamme -ka
> 3poss- see OBL DS= Coyote SS= play:U -UN
> e= se- <Vk> pen i a= tapune
> SS= 3poss- <COLL> child OBL DS= Cottontail
> Coyote saw Cottontail's children playing.
> Experiencers are expressed as possessors in predicates of sensory
> perception and cognition ("psych predicates"). Psych predicates are
> syntactically intransitive as are other possessive expressions; the
> possessor can appear as an adjoined oblique predicate, as is the
> case with _peya_ 'Coyote' and _tapune_ 'Cottontail'.
It took me a while to understand this, and I'm not entirely certain I
grasp it even now. What I understand you to have here is a series of
three intransitive predicates linked by the same-subject relation:
seen - playing - children
[I write "seen" rather than "see" as the subject, if I'm following
this, is the experienced party rather than the experiencer]
with oblique, different-subject possessors attached to the first and
third. Do I have this right?
Now, you mention that possessive expressions are syntactically
intransitive - are the oblique possessor arguments then optional? If
so, what would "sepite ehammeka esepeken i atapune" mean? What about
"pite ehammeka esepeken i atapune"? Are these valid sentences?
Does _pen_ show the same ambiguity between "offspring" and "juvenile"
as English "child"?