Re: THEORY: "Finite Verbs" vs "Non-Finite Verbs" in Languages with Poly-Personal Agreement
|From:||taliesin the storyteller <taliesin-conlang@...>|
|Date:||Monday, July 17, 2006, 22:13|
* Eldin Raigmore said on 2006-07-17 18:30:25 +0200
> My best understanding to-date is as follows; is it correct? In
> Norwegian there is no point in talking about "finite" vs "non-finite"
> Verb forms, since _all_ Norwegian verbs are non-finite. However in
> Norwegian there _is_ a distinction between tensed and untensed
Norwegian linguists consider the tense-carrying forms (present and
past, or if you like non-past and past) to be finite, the rest not
The only inflectional category on verbs in Norwegian is tense.
Reflexive/passive used to be productive but no longer is.
> "A finite verb is a verb form that occurs in an independent clause,
> and is fully inflected according to the inflectional categories marked
> on verbs in the language."
> This would imply that the verb of a subordinate clause could never be
> considered finite, no matter how completely inflected it is.
Remember that in natural language, "and" has the function of a boolean
> > > 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.
> Ooh! I wanna see! I wanna see!
Okay. Taruven has a weird form of pro-drop, to start with: a dropped
subject means the subject is 1st person, a dropped object means the
object is 3rd person, a dropped indirect object means the indirect
object is 3rd person *animate*.
It also has serial verb constructions:
jehan Seva kirja kru ilisiaT
This is, obviously :), an SVC: Jehan go cut kill Ilisi.
S is [S], T is [T], aT marks objects
Seva kiri kru ilisiaT
This is, obviosly, also an SVC: I/we go cut kill Ilisi.
As is this:
Seva kiri kru = I go cut kill someone/something
All very nice for newspaper headlines.
If you tell a story and the events happen consequtively and you need to
add detail you can't use an SVC, so you clause chain instead:
jehan Seva saies, lekiri ilisiaT ao lekru iaT
Jehan go to.river, same.subject-cut Ilisi and.then same.subject-kill him/her.
(In this particular example the clause-chaining implies that it took
some time between each act since if not an SVC would have been
jehan Seva saies, kiri ilisiaT ao kru iaT
means "Jehan go to.river, I/we cut Ilisi and.then I/we kill him/her"
This is ambiguous btw: did I/we kill Ilisi or Jehan? It might be that
there is also a marker for same object but I haven't discovered one so
Furthermore, all words capable of acting as transitives may incorporate
an object. Sometime these combinations fossilize, like riTann, meaning
"give name", ergo baptize.
Type I object-incorporation is basically: the object is incorporated,
turning the verb into an intransitive modified by the former object:
kirja veigaT "I cut down a/the tree(s)"
\-> kirjaveige "I am tree-cutting"
If theory is to be believed, to have type IV one needs to also have type
II and III, but I have no good examples.
On to type IV:
kirja SakraaT "I cut down cherry-trees"
\-> kirjaveige SakraaT "I am tree-cutting cherry-trees"
Another, similar phenomenon:
kirja kair veigevunaT "I cut down four small trees"
\-> kirjaveige kairvunaT "I tree-cut four small ones(trees)"
So, the incorporated object remains an object and is modified by
anything else that is marked with the object-marker.
Yet another example:
jehan kirjaveige IlisiaT "Jehan cut down Ilisi as he/she would fell a tree"
Back to the very lexicalized incorporations: with riTann, the name
itself would be marked as an object:
yriTannra xaiaT "they named him 'Pain'/he was named 'Pain'"
What's really going on is that the "object" is still accessible and is
modified attributively just like the case with "kirjaveige" above.
Sorry for the bloody examples, I don't have that many transitive verbs
to demonstrate with yet :)
t., who knows that the last sentence can be interpreted at least two ways