Re: THEORY: "Finite Verbs" vs "Non-Finite Verbs" in Languages with Poly-Personal Agreement

* Eldin Raigmore said on 2006-07-15 23:24:44 +0200
> (I _think_ this is a "THEORY:" post; maybe it's a "USAGE:" post.)
> (Which tag belongs on questions about linguistic terminology?)
I think it sorts under THEORY. USAGE is for YAE?Ts and the like, IIRC.

> Question 1: In languages in which no verb is ever required to agree with
> anything, are _all_ the verbs "non-finite"?  Or, in such languages, does
> the "finite" vs "non-finite" distinction not exist?
In Norwegian, verbs do not agree. Period. Non-finite verb-forms are then
things like the infinitive and the participles, basically *verbforms
that are not marked for tense* or *need an auxiliary to show tense*.

> Question 2:  In a language in which most bivalent or higher-valency verbs
> usually must agree with more than one participant (i.e. a language with
> polypersonal agreement); if a form of such a verb occurs which agrees with
> one participant only, is that a "finite" form of that verb, or a "non-
> finite" form of the verb?
I can't remember ever having seen that finite-ness has anything to do
with agreement so I'm at a loss to answer these... Somebody with a good
knowledge of Basque would be the ideal person to ask though.

> So why the heck am I asking?
>
> I am conning a clause-chaining lang.
       ^^^^^^^
Ooh, widening of meaning or more likely backformation. Yummy. Dangerous
word to use outside of our circle though.
A: "What, are you a con-man?" <grabs for phone to call police>
B: "Yessir, I love conventions! I'm off to a rock-collector's next month..."
A: "Uh..." <looks for dictionary>

/snip interesting overview of clause chaining/

> I want my lang to have a switch-reference system, too.
>
> In a switch-reference system, some verbs are obligatorily marked to show
> whether some referent is the same as, or different from, a similar referent
> of a reference clause.
AFMCL, it does switch-reference, or basically has a prefix to show same
subject as previous clause in a clause chain. If the subject is
different, it needs its own NP. Also, it's the only time the verb agrees
with anything... if we disregard type 4 object-incorporation as
agreement.

> In order to be called "a switch-reference system", the switch-reference
> marking must be _obligatory_; certain clauses _must_ be marked as same
> referent or different referent, _even_ _if_ that question is obviously
> answered by other markings.
>
> /ka-snip details/
>
> In my lang I hope to use non-finite verbs for Consecutive Clauses when the
> switch-reference system makes it clear what the referent is even if the
> verb doesn't agree with the referent.  Of course I'll do the same for
> Subordinate Clauses, as well.
>
/more snippage/
>
> If the "different referent"-marked verbs are then going to have to agree
> with the new referents, while the "same referent"-marked verbs don't,
> the "DR" verbs will be longer -- contain more phonological material -- than
> the corresponding "SR" verbs, even though the "Same Referent" marks are
> longer than the "Different Refent" marks.
Was this the end of your mail or was it cut somewhere for being too
long? There was no sig(nature) in the mail I received.

Thanks for the switch-reference overview as well!


t.