Re: New Conlang

On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 06:09:54PM +0100, Ray Brown wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 12, 2004, at 08:15 , H. S. Teoh wrote:
[...]
> >Yes, I guess what I meant was this usage: i.e., exhibiting some of the
> >typical properties of subjects. I was trying to avoid using "subject"
> >because the case system of the conlang doesn't really have that
> >concept,
>
> In that case it might be worth investigating the use of 'topic' for the
> overtly marked NP in Philippine languages. I'm afraid I have little
> knowledge of these languages, but I think some on the list do know of
> these languages.
>
> But if 'topic' in your conlang is analogous to Philippine use then as long
> you make it clear you are using 'topic' this way & don't mention focus, it
> should be OK, I think.
In researching this matter online, I came across this very interesting
paper:
	http://angli02.kgw.tu-berlin.de/Korean/Artikel03/

I also found that the Philippine topic is also variously known as
subject, nominative, or trigger.

Upon closer inspection, it seems that the NP in question in Tatari
Faran does exhibit some trigger-like properties. For example, this NP
can have any of the 3 semantically-determined cases, just as how the
Tagalog trigger can be any of actor, patient, etc.. Given any
sentence, any NP may be fronted, and the sentence still conveys the
same factual information (differing only in emphasis), analogous to
how in Tagalog the same thing can be said in different ways, depending
with which NP is made the trigger.

So it appears that, barring superficial differences (such as the NP's
case being marked on itself rather than on the verb, as in Tagalog,
or the absence of a physical trigger marker), Tatari Faran is in fact
a trigger language based on Ebisédian's case system (!).

But trigger or not, you're right in that this initial NP is
incorrectly described as 'focus'. I'll stick with 'subject' or 'topic'
for now. Maybe I'll call it a 'trigger' if it can be proven that it in
fact functions like the Tagalog trigger. :-)

[...]
> >I see. Now the NP in question, although it's sorta like a subject, can
> >sometimes behave a bit like a focus. For example:
> >
> >	san tse ka  hamra huu na  aram.
> >	man you ORG see   I   RCP see-COMPL
> >	"I see you, sir." Lit. "You sir, I see."
> >
> >Another example:
> >
> >	tse nei     haara sa  dutan?
> >	you RCP-fem noise CVY hear
> >	"Do you hear that noise?"
> >
> >	haara sa  tse nei     dutan?
> >	noise CVY you RCP-fem hear
> >	"That noise: did you hear it?"
> >
> >This looks like the fronting mechanism you describe later in your
> >post.
>
> Yes, but bear in mind that fronting is more commonly used IME for
> _topicalization_. Welsh is unusual in fronting the focus. The sort of
> topic fronting that we have in German is the more common use of fronting.
You're right. I think 'subject' or 'topic' (in the Philippine sense)
is probably the most appropriate term.

[snip]
> >I guess it should be "subject" then. Perhaps I should just accept that
> >subjects in this conlang necessarily behaves in odd ways sometimes,
> >because of the fact that it uses an Ebisédian-like case system. :-)
>
> well, as I say, it may well be worth checking out 'topic' in the Philipine
> langs before just plumping for "subject".
[...]

Yep, and now it seems that it might in fact be the same thing as the
Philippine languages' topic.


T

--
If it's green, it's biology, If it stinks, it's chemistry, If it has numbers
it's math, If it doesn't work, it's technology.