Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

THEORY: Serial Verb Constructions With "Kill" (was: THEORY: "Finite Verbs" vs "Non-Finite Verbs" in Languages with Poly-Personal Agreement)

From:Eldin Raigmore <eldin_raigmore@...>
Date:Tuesday, August 15, 2006, 23:51
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 00:13:02 +0200, taliesin the storyteller <taliesin-
conlang@...> wrote:
>> Ooh! I wanna see! I wanna see! > >Okay. Taruven has a weird form of pro-drop, to start with: a dropped >subject means the subject is 1st person, a dropped object means the >object is 3rd person, a dropped indirect object means the indirect >object is 3rd person *animate*. > >It also has serial verb constructions: > >jehan Seva kirja kru ilisiaT > >This is, obviously :), an SVC: Jehan go cut kill Ilisi. >S is [S], T is [T], aT marks objects
I find it interesting that your first example of a serial verb construction uses a verb meaning "kill" as part of the series. Is "Jehan" the Taruven equivalent of "Jack", by any chance?
>Seva kiri kru ilisiaT > >This is, obviosly, also an SVC: I/we go cut kill Ilisi. > >As is this: > >Seva kiri kru = I go cut kill someone/something > >All very nice for newspaper headlines.
And what's the difference, if any, between the Taruven for "cut" and the Taruven for "rip"?
>If you tell a story and the events happen consequtively and you need to >add detail you can't use an SVC, so you clause chain instead: > >jehan Seva saies, lekiri ilisiaT ao lekru iaT > >Jehan go to.river, same.subject-cut Ilisi and.then same.subject-kill
> >(In this particular example the clause-chaining implies that it took >some time between each act since if not an SVC would have been >sufficient.)
There are five possible relation ships between a referent (or time or location) of a Marked clause and a referent (or time or location) of a Reference clause: = (Exact, coextensive identity) < (marked referent properly contained within Reference referent)
> (marked referent properly contains Reference referent)
^ overlap (neither referent lies within the other but they have part(s) in common) | disjunction (the two referents are completely disjoint, having no parts in common). When we're talking about Same/Different Subjects and/or Same/Different Objects, AFAIK no natlang distinguishes between ^ and |. But it would be natural to make such a distinction in the Same/Different Location marking. (BTW most switch-reference natlangs either use the same mark for all of < and > and ^ and |, different from =; or use the same mark for all of = and < and >, different from ^ and | which are marked the same as each other. But some mark < different from >.) When we're talking about Same/Different Time, two other possibilities can come up; if one clause ends before another begins, (so they are disjoint |), are they consecutive/contiguous or not? Also, if they overlap in time wihtout either being contained within the other (the ^ relationship), which of them begins before the other begins and ends before the other ends?
>Now this... > >jehan Seva saies, kiri ilisiaT ao kru iaT > >means "Jehan go to.river, I/we cut Ilisi and.then I/we kill him/her" > >This is ambiguous btw: did I/we kill Ilisi or Jehan? It might be that >there is also a marker for same object but I haven't discovered one so >far.
I assume you mean "I haven't discovered a 'SameObject vs DifferentObject' morphology in Taruven so far." Because there is at least one in at least one natlang.
>Furthermore, all words capable of acting as transitives may incorporate >an object. Sometime these combinations fossilize, like riTann, meaning >"give name", ergo baptize. > >Type I object-incorporation is basically: the object is incorporated, >turning the verb into an intransitive modified by the former object: > >kirja veigaT "I cut down a/the tree(s)" >\-> kirjaveige "I am tree-cutting" > >If theory is to be believed, to have type IV one needs to also have type >II and III, but I have no good examples.
Remind me, please, what the differences are between Types I, II, III, and IV of object-incorporation? Thanks.
>On to type IV: > >kirja SakraaT "I cut down cherry-trees" >\-> kirjaveige SakraaT "I am tree-cutting cherry-trees" > >Another, similar phenomenon: >kirja kair veigevunaT "I cut down four small trees" >\-> kirjaveige kairvunaT "I tree-cut four small ones(trees)" > >So, the incorporated object remains an object and is modified by >anything else that is marked with the object-marker. > >Yet another example: > >jehan kirjaveige IlisiaT "Jehan cut down Ilisi as he/she would fell a
> >Back to the very lexicalized incorporations: with riTann, the name >itself would be marked as an object: > >yriTannra xaiaT "they named him 'Pain'/he was named 'Pain'" > >What's really going on is that the "object" is still accessible and is >modified attributively just like the case with "kirjaveige" above. > >Sorry for the bloody examples,
It just seems natural to use "cut kill" as a serial verb construction, especially if your subject is named Jack. I suppose if he were named Maxwell, you'd use a "hit kill" SVC.
>I don't have that many transitive verbs >to demonstrate with yet :) > > >t., who knows that the last sentence can be interpreted at least two ways
Thanks. ----- Eldin


taliesin the storyteller <taliesin-conlang@...>