Re: GROUPLANG : POLL2 (Re: cases, modifiers, pron

Mathias M. Lassailly wrote:
> >
> >1. The following cases have been most suggested :
> >
> >1.1. Cases used with verb-rooted predicates :
> >
> >- ergative = transitive nominative ERG=TNOM : erg-me to-be-red = I redden
> >(him); erg-me to-rise = I raise;
> >erg-me bite = I bite.
> >
> >- absolutive = undergoer = intransitive nominative ABS=UND=INOM : abs-me
> >to-rise = I rise; abs-me to-be-red =
> >I am/become red.
> >
> >Nota : this is not a genuine absolutive which should be passive as in Basque as in :
> >abs-me to-be-cut = I'm cut => erg-me abs-it to-be-cut = I cut it.
> >
> >- patientive = accusative PAT=ACC : pat-me to-bite = I'm bitten.
> >
> >- causative CAUS : caus-me erg-he red = I have him redden (something); caus-me
> >erg-he fall = I have him fell;
> >erg-me food = I apply food = I feed (someone).
> >
> >- dative DAT : dat-me to-give = I'm given (a gift).
> >
> >1.1. Cases used with noun-rooted predicates :
> >
> >- agentive AGE : age-me stream = I stream; age-me club = I beat; age-me gift =
> >I'm given (as a gift); age-me
> >image = I'm seen.
> >
> >- ergative ERG : erg-me red = I apply red on him; erg-me fall = I apply fall
> >on him = I make him fall; erg-me
> >hammer = I apply hammer = I hammer (with a tool).
> >
> >- patientive PAT : pat-me red = I'm applied red colour; pat-me club = I'm
> >clubbed; pat-me eye = I'm looked at.
> >
> >- absolutive ABS : abs-me eye = abs-image = I see; abs-seat = I sit; abs-me
> >fruit : I bear fruit; abs-me rise
> >= I rise; abs-me gift = I'm given (a gift).
> >
> >- attributive ATT : att-me home = I live in (a cave); att-me brother = I've a
> >brother; att-me ears = I've
> >ears; att-me smoke = I (release) smoke; etc.
> >
> >- causative CAUS : caus-me erg-he red = I have him redden; caus-me erg-he fall
> >= I have him fell something.
>
> I agree on all of this, with some reserves...
>
I don't prone them, I just remind them because they were most discussed.

> 1. What's the difference between "erg-me fall" and "caus-me fall"?
> (I guess the latter one should not imply you did it on purpose.)
Causative means 'I make something happen' : it's directed on the whole process, namely
either 'erg-dog bite' or 'abs-me fall' or 'pat-me hammer' : 'I have him
bite/fall/hammer'. It's like a factitive voice on verb, but factitive voice in
ergative structure would imply two ergatives in the sentence : one for the
factitive, another one for the verb, that's messy enough. That's why I
suggested a plain causative case.

> Plus, is it "erg-me pat-him fall" or "erg-me abs-him fall"? (I guess
> the second one... "abs-him fall" means "he falls")
Yes. That's why ergative uses absolutive, not patientive, unless it's mixed with
nom/acc system... which apparently is the case of our language, so please do as
you like :-)

>
> 2. I don't like "abs-me eye" for "I see". And "abs-me gift" I would
> prefer to translate as "I am a gift" (which is not the same as "I'm given")
>
Ok. Then may I suggest you use agentive. Agentive is 'to be a gift', 'to be a hammer', etc.
In another post I suggested that absolutive also shows indirect object such as
'I'm given (something)'.

'eye' is an organ. Either we dismiss organs as agents of verbs or we use another
case : why not ergative ? : erg-me eye = I see. (English : 'to eye in the
keyhole'). The result of the work of organs would imply absolutive :
eye > image > erg-x eye = to see >abs-x image = to see
ear > sound > erg-x ear = to hear > abs-x sound = to hear.

>
>
> >
> >1.3. Case used with arguments :
> >
> >- genitive GEN : dog gen-me / gen-me dog  = my dog
> >
> >2. Suggested degrees of integration were :
> >
> >- thema + rhema (topic) THEM + RHEM : them-(abs)-dog red = the dog, she's red;
> >OR dog red = the dog, (she's)
> >red.
> >
> >- argument + predicate + ARG + PRED : erg-dog pat/acc-me bite = dog bites me.
> >
> >- modifier + noun / modifier + predicate = MOD + NOUN/PRED : mod-red dog = red
> >dog; erg-me mod-hard bite = I
> >bite hard.
> >
> >- phrase + determinant / noun + determinant = PHR/NOUN + DET : det-pat-me bite
> >dog = the dog who bites me.
> >
> >- clause + relative + sub-clause = CL + REL + SUBCL : dog erg-it pat-me bite =
> >the dog who bites me / the dog
> >biting me; dog abs-it red = red dog; erg-dog pat-me abs-which hard bite = dog bites me hard.
>
> I agree on most of these. I prefer to have determination expressed by
> other means, maybe as a suffix (here, in the DOG).
>
Thank you for providing us with a structure as example so that we can vote on it.

> >
> >3. Suggested pronouns were :
> >
> >3.1. Personal pronouns (spacial deixis - no genders discussed here) :
> >
> >- 1, 2, 3, 3bis
> >- 1sg, 1pl, 2sg, 2pl, 3sg, 3pl
> >- 1incl, 1excl, 2incl, 2excl, 3
> >- polite-less-polite-even-less-polite
> >etc.
> >
>
> I vote for 1incl, 1excl, 2incl, 2excl, 3,
> with an optional marker of politeness. (Maybe we could
> have another one for anti-politeness or despise!)
>
>
> >3.2. Relative/resumptive pronouns (syntactic deixis) :
> >
> >latter/former/next one : dog erg-last_one pat-me bite = dog who bites me
> >latter/this/next fact : erg-dog abs-this_fact hard pat-me bite = dog bites me hard; arg-dog
> >pat-me bite att-
> >latter_fact hard = dog bites me hard.
>
> I don't like this usage completely. Maybe for more complicated
> sentences.
Please provide us with your suggestion for subclause construction.

>
> >
> >Please make your choice and comments on items 1.1 through 3.2.
> >
> >Suggested next step : postpositions/adverbal subclause; word-order in subclause;
> >genders/classifiers; derived
> >nouns, state/action nouns ('the one bitten', 'the maker', 'the fact of eating');
> >aspects, moods ('want to',
> >'can', 'must', etc.) tenses, negative; for verb-rooted predicates : passive, (antipassive ?).
>
> I think we should have the moods suggested (want to, can, must),
> plus two conditional ("if") moods: "If I do" (it's probable that
> I do, so...) and "If I did" (it's not certain that I will do, it
> depends).
>
> Each mood should be a prefix of the verb; and each one should
> have a negative form.
So negative may be attached to mood or to verb ?


 Plus, a suffix could negate the verb itself.
> This to avoid ambiguities such as "I must not escape" (I must not
> escape OR I don't have to escape).
> I know it's not ambiguous in English, but only because we use
> "have to". This way we could say "I cannot not see" ("I can't help
> but see").
>
>
> --Pablo Flores
>
Christophe, Pablo and Mathias answered.

Thanks to answer, comment and suggest in turn so that we can proceed on.

Mathias




-----
See the original message at http://www.egroups.com/list/conlang/?start=17667
--
Free e-mail group hosting at http://www.eGroups.com/