Re: Comments? Applicative and Noun Incorporation

FIRST, I'd like to preface this by saying...I shouldn't be writing this late..it's
3:34 AM..but I'll jump right in anyways:

David Peterson <DigitalScream@...> writes:

>In a message dated 04/12/02 8:39:15 AM, AL260@AOL.COM writes:
>
><< (oh, and it's split-ergative: nouns take ergative-absolutive marking,
>pronouns take nominative-accusative marking). >>
>
>    !??!?!  What prompted this?

Why not? Split-Ergative systems are fun! Actually, what happened was I started out
with a sentence using a Pronoun, which I didn't mark for any case, just put it
in the regular order SVO. But then, for some unknown reason, while making
sentences with Nouns in them, I marked them for a Subject case...and then the
idea popped into my head that I could make it a Split-Ergative, with Nouns
being marked and Pronouns not.

>    Anyway, if I followed, the suffix doesn't seem like an applicative so
>
much as an indicator that the direct object has been incorporated, and the
>old indirect object promoted.
Right, things like Indirect Objects, or maybe "Benefactives" would be better (but
also as other examples might have shown, Locatives and Allatives and lots of
other things) are all promoted

 And the one process that promotes objects is
>passive.  (We just had an assignment on this; confusing.)  Because,
>technically you are adding an argument, but you're also losing one.
The one process that promotes objects is passives? No.

Passivization: Demotes the Agent argument and promotes the Theme argument of a transitive
verb, sometimes making hte verb intransitive. That is Themes get Promoted
usually from DIRECT OBJECT position to SUBJECT position in Passivization.

Applicative: Promotes an oblique argument (sometimes Benefactive, sometimes Locative or
others) to DIRECT OBJECT position.


> And it further complicates matters that there's a difference in > aspect between the two.
Well, I dont see why this should complicate matters...Applicative is a process not a
meaning...I'm sure there are some languages where using an Applicative form has
a really big change like Aspect Change, whereas in English..it's pretty much
interchangeable with non-Applicative.

  Or maybe I'm missing it...
>    My professor gave us the sentence that her six year-old son said, "Don't
>hair-dry me", as opposed to "Don't dry my hair".  This was described as
>applicative.  Is that what's going on here?

Exactly. Wow..I didn't know that English could have such a straightforward example of
both Applicative and Incorporation.

Don't dry my hair
OR paraphrased:
Don't dry the hair on me  (I know..very strange grammar)
[VP [V Don't Dry] [NP The Hair] [PP On Me]]

"The hair" is a THEME argument and direct object.
"on me" is a SOURCE argument (simply put it's a Location). It is Oblique.

Applicative process applies:
Don't hair-dry me
"hair" has been eliminated as an argument, now it functions as part of the verb.
"me" is still a Source, but now it's the grammatical direct object.

----------------------------------------------------------------
A better example would be from Ainu, which I indirectly got the idea from, since
I didn't ever look in my book for examples..I just remembered that Ainu had
this feature:


nea  cep pone tura  a-kuykuy
that fish bone with 1sts-bite
"I bit that fish with bones"

fish = Direct Object
pone = Oblique Phrase

Applicative:
nea  cep pone  a-ko-kuykuy
that fish bone 1sts-APPL-bite
"I APPL-bit the bone that fish"

fish = er...something
bone = Direct Object (it was promoted)

Incorporation of Direct Object:
nea cep a-pone-ko-kuykuy
that fish I-bone-APPL-bite
"I APPL-bone-bit the fish"

Basically analogous to something in my language like:

di wòma    irşë  jo ñyisu   phwò ndise
ERG mother place ABS dinner into oven
“the mother placed/is placing the dinner in the oven
/di wOma irS@ dZo n:jisu p_hwO ndise/

AND

di  wòma   ñyis-irşë-ryì     jo  ndise wo    banjo
ERG mother dinner-place-APPL ABS oven  every night
“mother places the dinner into the oven every night"
/di wOma n:jisirSI dZo ndise wo bandZo/

Elliott Lash...suddenly too tired to go on.

Reply