Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: valency question

From:The Gray Wizard <dbell@...>
Date:Friday, May 11, 2001, 17:24
> From: Muke Tever > > How do natlangs and conlangs handle making distinctions between > sentences like > these? English uses word order (with intonation differences too, > I think), > but I wonder about other ways (are there any?). > > John called the beaver ugly. > John called the ugly beaver.
There are a couple of distinctions to be made here. 1) The English verb 'call' is used in two different senses in these two sentences. In the first the sense is 'to name' while in the second the sense is 'to summon'. 2) The adjective 'ugly' is used in two different roles in these two sentences. In the first it is a nominalized adjective while in the second it is a simple adjective modifying a noun. The difficulty in discriminating these two sentences is really an artifact of English. In amman iar, for example, the difference is clear. John called the dog ugly. channe eleth eni huan erendiel vorvalison where \t erendiel vorvalison \m er- endo -ie -l ve- or= maliso -on \g do- call -agt/thm -actn descr- compl= be.beautiful -[Obl] \p agt- v -val -vc adj- pfx= v -dat \x call ugly while John called the ugly dog chananne eleth eni huan vorvalis eroniliel where \t huan vorvalis eroniliel \m huan -0 ve- or= maliso er- ornilo -ie -l \g dog -[P] descr- compl= be.beautiful do- summon -agt/thm -actn \p n -abs adj- pfx= v agt- v -val -vc \x dog ugly summoned [Seems I don't have a word for beaver] 1) The two senses of call are represented by two different verbs (endo=to call, name; ornilo=to call, summon). 2) The two different roles of the word 'ugly' are made clear by both word order (nominalized adj is postverbal, modifying adj is post nominal) and form (nominalized adj takes noun case; here dative)
> Also a different kind of sentence: > > Mary thought about a cat eating. > Mary thought about eating a cat.
Here the word 'eating' plays two very different roles. In the first, it is a verbal adjective modifying 'cat' and in the second it is a verbal noun with 'cat' as its object. Again the confusion is due to the fact that English uses the same form for these two roles. In amman iar we would have Mary thought about a cat eating marielle eleth ani ainlavan vemath codhiar \t an i ainlavan vemath \m an i ainno lavan -0 ve- matho \g pat.to.thm the be.holy animal -[P] descr- eat \p ptp det v n adj- v \x to the cat -abs eating and Mary thought about eating a cat marielle eleth ani math ainlavanon codhiar \t an i math ainlavanon \m an i matho -0 ainno lavan -on \g pat.to.thm the eat -[P] be.holy animal -[Obl] \p ptp det v -abs v n -dat \x to the eating of.cat Here the distinctions in roles is made in form, thus 'vemath=eating' as an adj modifier and 'math=eating' as a verbal noun. In the first 'cat' is the object of the predicate and thus is in the absolutive case. In the second, 'eating' is the object of the predicate in the absolutive case while cat as the object of 'eating' and is thus in the dative. David David E. Bell The Gray Wizard www.graywizard.net Wisdom begins in wonder.

Reply

The Gray Wizard <dbell@...>