Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: HELP: a few questions

From:Jeff Jones <jeffsjones@...>
Date:Saturday, August 31, 2002, 20:40
On Tue, 20 Aug 2002 16:31:44 -0600, Dirk Elzinga <Dirk_Elzinga@...>

>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 > >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