Re: Serial verbs in trigger systems

Pablo Flores wrote:

>Kristian Jensen <kljensen@...> wrote:
>> Pablo Flores wrote:
>>
>> -----<snip>-----
>> >My question is: does this seem farfetched? (It does,
>> >a bit, to me). Is this used in natlangs? Any other
>> >ideas? Suggestions are welcome.
>>
>> You probably think its farfetched because you're not used to
>> dealing with trigger systems, but it looks like a fairly logical
>> extension of a trigger system to me. Though I fail to see any
>> serial verbs in the construction you have made.
>
>Yes, my idea changed in mid-way. What I wanted to do
>was something like "I cut wood use axe", with the series
>cut-use, but then I saw this would be differently handled
>in a trigger language.
Since you posted the query on the possibility of serial verbs in
trigger languages, I have pondered whether this is at all possible.
I don't think it is, but then perhaps that's because my own frame of
thought is rigidly Filipino.

The closest construction I can think of that bears a cut-use serial
verb and still maintains a trigger system to a certain degree
reminds me of an experiment I tried out a year or two ago for
Boreanesian. It involved incorporation. So the sample sentence might
literally translate as "I am the wood-cutter-user of an axe" or "I
am the axe-user-cutter of wood". If you want to carry on with this
experiment, you have my blessings. 8-)

>> Tagalog might have a similar construction. If I were to say "I
>> cut wood with an axe" in Tagalog, I'd normally say something
>> like:
>>
>> Gumamit  ako    ng   palakol  sa   pagputol     ng   kahoy.
>> AGT.use  TRG.I  GEN  axe      OBL  for-cutting  GEN  wood
>> lit.: "I am the user of an axe for the cutting of wood."
>>
>> or
>>
>> Palakol  ang  ginamit  ko     sa   pagputol     ng   kahoy.
>> axe      TRG  PAT.use  GEN.I  OBL  for-cutting  GEN  wood
>> lit.: "My instrument for the cutting of wood is an axe."
>
>What is _pagputol_ "for cutting"? Is it an inflected form of a
>predicate "cut"? I'm guessing _p-agp-utol_ with an infix -agp-
>(judging by _pumutol_ below).
You almost got it. It is an inflected form of the word for "cutting"
meaning "for cutting" - (you got that right). But the affix is a
prefix: pag + putol = pagputol.

>[snip]
>>
>> But in your construction, you're trigger is the cutter of wood as
>> the user of an axe. Thus you're construction is not much
>> different from the Tagalog construction below:
>>
>> Ako  ang  pumutol  ng   kahoy  na  gumamit  ng   palakol
>> I    TRG  AGT.cut  GEN  wood   [   AGT.use  GEN  axe      ]
>> lit.: "The cutter of wood who is the user of an axe is me."
>>
>
>Almost my way. What is _na_, a subordinate clause marker?
>This is more of a serial verb construction than my INSTR.do
>because the trigger remains the same.
Yes, "na" is a subordinate clause marker used in much the same way
that an English speaker would use "that", e.g.: "The person *that*
went to the market is a Boreanesian".

>I guess I didn't see the other possible ways
>because I'm not familiar with the system and I tend to put
>things into the very rigid limited frames I have. I'm gonna
>change that.
This is one of the reasons I love trigger systems. It is extremely
flexible, and you can topicalize anything.

>Thanks a lot for the examples!
I'm glad I could be of help.

-kristian- 8-)