Re: valency question

> 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