On Thu, 31 May 2001, daniel andreasson <daniel.andreasson@...> wrote
Quoting a learned (?) paper :
> Subjects in non-finite verbal-nominal clauses are marked
> peculiarly from the stand-point of finite clause marking
> which is nominative-accusative in that it allows variation
> in the marking of intransitive subjects.
> Subjects of non-finite *intransitive* verbs vary between being
> marked as either the A of above or the O.
> (2) VN A
> ymlad [ohonafi] dros vym baryf
> fighting of-me for my beard
> 'I fought for my beard.'
I'd gloss this "fighting by me for my beard" or simply "me fighting for my
beard" (whatever that means, baryf here may mean 'honour' or 'manhood' as
in "meuyl ar uy maryf i" -- shame on my beard/honour/manhood)
> (3) VN O
> kynn diodef [Crist]
> before suffering Christ
> 'Before Christ suffered.'
This is a perfectly normal phrase that translates "before the suffering of
Christ". Does he give any other examples for this category?
> _Ymlad_ 'fight' thus marks its subject as A
Rubbish, the beard isn't doing any fighting! Which universe does this writer
belong to?
Bringing back the auxillary "to do" you'd have :
(Ys) ymlad a orugum dros vym baryf
('Tis) fighting that I did for my beard
Take away the auxillary and the subject marking goes too. To bring the subj.
back, the preposition "o" acts as a kind of bearer and markes its
relationship to the verbal noun.
If you use the finite verb "to fight" you have
Yd ymledeis dros vym baryf
[Positive] I fought for my beard
In my old-fashoned way I'd say the beard was an indirect object.
> while _diodef_ 'suffer' marks its subject as O.
I don't think "before the suffering of Ch." really counts as a verbal phrase,
the verbal noun is here functioning like any other noun. Maybe I'm thick
but I can't see any syntactic difference between "before the man's suffering",
"before the man's dinner" and "behind the man's house". The confusion I think
is because in Celtic syntax the genitive marks the _object_ of a verbal noun
when it is used in conjuction with an auxillary or other verb.
So "I did hit the dog" comes out as "I did the hitting of the dog", "I did
its hitting".
> Some other points:
> Only [+ HUMAN] subjects can be marked as A. If the intransitive
> subject is [- HUMAN] it is marked as O, regardless of which
> verb is used. Remember also that this variation between A and
> O is only applied to intransitive verbs.
I feel this may be an artifact of his sample, unfortunately I've no easy
way of looking for counter examples. Do we know how much text he analysed?
> (1) If the verb is an Activity, its subject is marked as A.
Yes
> (2) If the verb is an Achievement, its subject can be marked
> as either A or P (fluid marking).
> (3) If the verb is Stative, its subject is marked as O.
> Sample verbs of class 1 (A):
> ride, walk, run, fight, preach, eat, study, pray, return,
> sin, mount.
Ok, normal transitive vbs
> Sample verbs of class 2 (A or O):
> suffer, sleep, sit down, flee, remain.
Voluntary?
> Sample verbs of class 3 (O):
> be, die, slip, escape, fall down.
Involuntary?
> Manning is able to describe the variation by dividing the
> verbs into "telics" (events with a clear terminal end-point,
> like "kick") and "atelics" (no natural end-point, "play").
> Other variables he uses are [CONTROL] and as said above
> [ACTIVITY].
> Summing up the results in a table:
> Marking: Atelic: Telic:
> A [+control] activities --
> A or O [-control] activities [+control] telics
> O states [-control] telics
> Or in other words: If the verb is a controlled activity
> A-marking is used, if it is a state or a non-controlled
> telic, O-marking is used. If it's a non-controlled activity
> or a controlled telic, it can be either-or.
Here are the examples I've found of the "o" prep. with intransitive
verbal nouns (his A) :
Edrych oheni hitheu ar Iwerdon -- She looked upon Ireland
Guedy gorwed ohonaw ef ar traws yr auon -- After he lay across the river
Dyuot o Idawc -- Iddog came
Ymchoelut o'r iarll y'r pebyll -- The earl returned to the tent
All controlled telics, I think.
> He finally notes that some of the either-or verbs have
> a bias towards O-marking and thus doesn't have totally free
> marking.
Sounds like he's hedging his bets here.
Well he could be right, but I think it's probably a matter of semantics
whether or not the o-construction is used, rather than being some major
defining feature of the underlying grammar. I get the feeling that he
knows rather too much fancy theory and not enough basic Welsh/Celtic
syntax.
Keith