Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Trigger Languages?

From:Jeff Jones <jeffsjones@...>
Date:Wednesday, February 12, 2003, 7:25
On Sun, 9 Feb 2003 16:21:02 +0100, Christophe Grandsire
<christophe.grandsire@...> wrote:

>En réponse à Jeff Jones <jeffsjones@...>: > >> I read all the recent posts about trigger languages and some >> additional archived messages, and there's still a few things I don't >> understand. How are relative and participial clauses handled? Does the >> relative pronoun always take the trigger? Does the trigger case affix on >> the verb indicate the case of the participle's implied subject? > >Well, it all depends on how the trigger language handles relative clauses. >If accusative languages handle relative clauses so differently (look at >English with its postposed relative subclauses with relative pronouns, >while Japanese uses preposed relative subclauses without relative >pronouns). Tagalog, the most well known trigger language, doesn't have >relative pronouns for instance. Instead, it uses a "ligature" (na or -ng) >to link the noun to the verb of the relative clause (in any order, so the >ligature can be on the noun if it's followed by the verb, and vice versa). >In this case, the trigger on the verb of the relative clause does indeed >indicate the function of the antecedent in the sentence.
OK.
>See > http://members.tripod.com/~isang_muli/frames/grammar.html#11 >for more details (if you can understand this page :)) . The style is a bit >confusing...).
I finally had a chance to look -- it is confusing. I didn't get any more out of it than what you said above.
>My Itakian handles relative subclauses very differently. Actually, it >doesn't have subclauses at all. Instead, it goes all the way to >nominalisation of the verb, which is then juxtaposed to the noun it >completes. The function of the antecedent in the relative "clause" is >given by the kind of nominalised form the verb took. > >As for participles, I don't know how they work in Tagalog (there is >something on the page I gave to you, but I can't understand it. It's much >too unclear). In Itakian, as I said, each verb has a number (five at most) >of nominalised forms which correspond to participles, and whose form >depends on the function of the implied trigger. So there is an Actor >participle, a Patient participle, >etc... > >> Also, has anyone done a trigger auxlang or loglang? It's hard to >> follow examples because of the additional complications in natlangs and >> naturalistic artlangs. > >Saalangal seems to be the closest to what you're looking for (since AFAIK >it's straightforward and regular enough in its grammar), but unfortunately >there seems not to be much about it on the web :(( . My Itakian is also >very straightforward, but has too many other quirks to be of use for your >purpose.
I suspected as much.
>Now, isn't a trigger auxlang a contradiction in terms? ;)))))
Why should it be? Jeff
>Christophe. > >http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr > >Take your life as a movie: do not let anybody else play the leading role.