Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: 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:Saturday, August 26, 2006, 16:22
Please forgive me for taking so long to respond.
My guess is that I forgot to because your contributions don't show up on
the Yahoo! mirror-site.  But I'm not sure.

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 11:41:42 +0200, taliesin the storyteller <taliesin-
conlang@...> wrote:

>*Eldin Raigmore said on 2006-08-16 01:51:13 +0200 >>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 00:13:02 +0200, taliesin the storyteller <taliesin- >>conlang@NVG.ORG> wrote: >>>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. > >As I say later, I still have *very* few transitive verbs. "kirja" was >originally just used for how a boat cuts through waves. > >>Is "Jehan" the Taruven equivalent of "Jack", by any chance? > >The entire set of words deriving from hebrew Jochanan actually: so: >John, Joe, Johnny, Jane, Jean, Joan, Anne, Hannah, Sean, Ian, Jack etc.
I knew Anne and Hannah were related to each other, but I didn't know they were related to Jochanan. Also I usually think of Joe as related to Joseph rather than to Jochanan. (The rest of those names were a group to me already.)
>It's my default "need a name for examples"-name right now.
Like "Devadatta" in Sanskrit?
>>And what's the difference, if any, between the Taruven for "cut" and the >>Taruven for "rip"? > >Cut needs an (implied) instrument. Rip will only be done without an >implement (cannot take an NP marked for instrumental).
Makes sense.
>>>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." > >Yep. Btw, the "ao" implies that the clause to the right happened at the >same time or later than the clause to the right. "ao" only conjoins >clauses.
Interesting. (And I'm glad I apparently understood it.)
>>Remind me, please, what the differences are between Types I, II, III, >>and IV of object-incorporation? > >Most people just differ between type I and type not-I, collapsing II, >III and IV, but I'll try: > >I: "Lexical compounding". Lexicalized incorporation. The verb is > modified by a constituent and decreases in valency by 1. Transitive > -> Intransitive. Many languages used to have this and now only have > frozen forms left, hence lexicalized. >II: "Manipulation of case". Valency not decreased, the incorporated > constituent is replaced by another constituent that changes in case. > This could maybe be used for passivization: incorporate the subject > and change the prior object into the (syntactic) subject. >III: "Manipulation of discourse". The incorporated constituent serves as > background information. No change in valency. >IV: "Classificatory". The incorporated constituent shows the class of > the NP, no change in valency. > >I recommend this survey: >
Thanks. I've looked it up and read the first two pages; I've printed it out and will finish reading it later.
>>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. > >Jack the Ripper I have heard of, who's Maxwell?
Look for instance at:'s_Silver_Hammer (In this case the (first) victim's name was Joan.)
>Anyway, I still don't have an acceptable word for "hit". >t. >=========================================================================
Thanks. ----- eldin