Re: HELP: a few questions

On Tue, 20 Aug 2002 16:31:44 -0600, Dirk Elzinga <Dirk_Elzinga@...>
wrote:

>At 5:47 PM -0400 8/17/02, Jeff Jones wrote:
>>
>> Question for Dirk: are the languages where subordinate clauses are
>> replaced with noun phrases kimited to 1 level of embedding, or can the
>> noun phrases contain embedded noun phrases?
>
>Do you mean natural languages or my constructed languages? The first
>language where I did this was Shemspreg, and I don't think I ever had
>occasion to use multiple embedding, so I couldn't tell you. Of
>course, Shemspreg did allow genuine subordinate clauses alongside the
>nominalized clause type.
I've been studying this carefully, trying to come up with some good
questions, but I could only some up with stupid questions. I think I've
figured it out somewhat.

>Miapimoquitch also treats subordinate clauses as a kind of
>nominalization, though I'm not happy with that characterization of
>them. Here's a sentence which illustrates especially well the
>"nominal" nature of subordinate clauses:
>
>luppika asenpipite
>luppi     -ka a=  se-    n-  RED-  pite
>muskrat:U -UN DS= 3POSS- TR- PAUC- see
>'They saw a muskrat.' (lit: 'A muskrat was their seeing.')
I had trouble understanding this example, since the smooth translation has
only one verb -- I thought there had to be one for the main clause and
another for each subordinate clause, even if they're nominalized. I guess
you either have a copula hidden within {luppika} -- I don't understand your
notation completely -- or you have a null copula acting as the main verb.
Right???

>The subordinate clause is marked first by a "determiner" which
>indicates whether or not the subject of the embedded clause is
>coreferential with the subject of the matrix clause (in this clause
>it isn't). It is this determiner which gives the subordinate clause
>its nominal character. A potentially misleading factor in this
>sentence is that the root _pite_ 'see' takes a possessive marker for
>a subject; it does this whether or not it is in the subordinate
>clause (this is common to roots which denote perception and
>cognition). That is, a main clause with _pite_ as the root still
>expresses the subject with a possessive marker:
>
>ipitewa
>n-  pite -wa
>TR- see  -1POSS
>'I/we saw him/her/them.'
I notice in this case, that the possessive marker for the perceiver is an
affix rather than a suffix.

>I worked out some other sentences, but they take us too far afield.
>Maybe in another post.
I wouldn't mind seeing them.

Jeff J.

>Dirk
>--
>Dirk Elzinga                  Dirk_Elzinga@byu.edu
>
>Man deth swa he byth thonne he mot swa he wile.
>'A man does as he is when he can do what he wants.'
>
>- Old English Proverb