|From:||Jeff Jones <jeffsjones@...>|
|Date:||Friday, June 29, 2001, 9:05|
I have a question about reflexive pronouns. First, some context.
In 'Yemls, a word can have up to 3 core arguments, one of which is the
subject, and the other 2, if they appear, are objects. The basic syntax is:
Subject Head Object1 Object2 (I'm ignoring oblique arguments here)
The head is marked for grammatical voice: either Active, Passive, or
Complementive. This determines the core argument cases, as follows:
Agent Active-Head Patient Complement
Patient Passive-Head Complement Agent
Complement Complementive-Head Patient Agent
There is also a mechanism to swap object case roles, if necessary.
There are no relative pronouns; the equivalent of a relative clause is
formed by omitting the subject. Thus, the grammatical voice changes are
needed for other than argument demotion and topicality changes. Now for the
I am considering 2 methods for reflexive pronouns.
Method 1 uses 2 pronouns; one refers to the subject of the clause and the
other to the other object. There is a potential ambiguity when both objects
appear and one is referred to in an oblique clause (but this can probably
be handled). Also, a grammatical voice change may require that the pronoun
be changed as well.
Method 2 uses 3 pronouns: one for each primary case role. The disadvantages
of method one disappear, but an additional short word is required.
What I'm wondering is if either or both of these 2 methods is excessively
unnatural, or if I've missed something.