Re: Participles in Natlangs and in Conlangs
| From: | Eldin Raigmore <eldin_raigmore@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Tuesday, June 20, 2006, 17:08 |
|---|
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 08:39:38 +0100, R A Brown <ray@...>
wrote:
>Eldin Raigmore wrote:
>[snip]
>>Consider the Latin gerundive; although it is a verbal noun rather than a
>>verbal adjective,
>
>No - the gerundive is most certainly an _adjective_.
Great! Thanks for the correction.
That means "gerundives" are an even better and more-accessible class of
examples for what I was talking about.
>It has endings for all three genders in both singular and plural, for
>all cases. It is declined in fact just like the adjective 'bonus' and,
>like all adjectives, must 'agrees' with a noun. But also, like all Latin
>adjectives, it can be used substantively with the noun "understood", cf.
>bona = a good things [neut, pl.]; agenda = things to be done.
>bonus = a good person [masc. sing.]; honorandus = a person worthy of honor.
>
>But it is certainly an adjective: epistulae mihi scribendae sunt = for
>me there letters to be written = I must write some letters.
>
>It will be seen that they are passive in meaning. At school we had it
>drummed into us: "The gerundIVE is a passIVE adjectIVE." :)
>
>Traditionally the impersonal neuter gerundive of intransitive verbs
>(such verbs could be used _impersonally_ with passive endings in Latin),
>was also used the same way; e.g.
>mihi eundum est = I must go
>eundum erit = one/we/they/people will have to go
>(cf. itur = Fr. 'on va')
>
>One of the things that complicates matters is that in early Latin also
>the neuter singular of the gerund could be used with a direct object!
>So, for example, one could say:
>epistulas mihi scribendum est = I must write letters.
>
>In this use 'scribendum' is, in effect, an _active verbal noun_ - but
>this then traditionally labeled a _gerund_ in Latin; it was, however,
>strictly a substantivized neuter gerundive. It is clear that in early
>Latin the gerundive was neutral as regards voice.
>
>This use of the substantivized neuter gerundive or 'gerund' of
>transitive verbs with a direct object was found in the Classical period
>only as a conscious archaism in the poets Lucretius, Catullus & Vergil.
>It is found only once in Cicero and thereafter never in prose.
All quite interesting. Thanks.
>>it basically inflects a verb "V" into a noun
>>meaning "thing that somebody had better get around to V-ing one day."
>
>No - it is more complicated than that. There are, as I shall show below,
>two quite distinct uses of the gerundive in Latin.
Hmm! Thanks.
>>Examples; an agendum is a thing that needs doing, a memorandum is a thing
>>that needs remembering, an explanandum is a thing that needs explaining, a
>>definiendum is a thing that needs defining, and an Amanda is somebody who
>>needs loving.
>
>Not really - even in this usage (confined almost, tho not entirely, to
>the nominative case) the meaning is 'capable of', 'susceptible of',
>'prone to', 'ready for' etc. 'Amanda' is probably just "lovable".
>Whether specific necessity is implied or not depends upon context.
Thanks, that's good to know.
It's still an example of what I was talking about, though I should have
said different things about it.
>But in the genitive, dative & ablative, and in the accusative after a
>preposition, they did not normally convey _any_ of those meanings: *they
>served as the oblique case of the infinitive*. The Latin infinitive
>(verbal noun) was indeclinable could be used only as a nominative and
>_plain_ accusative, the rest was supplied by the gerund (if
>intransitive) or gerundive (if transitive), e.g.
> (a) INTRANSITIVE
>Nominative legere facile est = Reading is easy/ It's easy to read
>Accusative legere amo = I like reading/ I like to read
>Prep. + Acc. ad legendum abiit = he went off (in order) to read
>Genitive ars legendi = the art of reading
>Dative legendo studet = he is fond of reading
>Ablative legendo multa didicit = he learnt much by reading
>Prep. + Abl. de legendo nihil nouit = he knew nothing about reading
>
> (b) TRANSITIVE
>Nominative libros legere facile est = Reading books is easy
>Accusative libros legere amo = I like reading books etc
>Prep. + Acc. ad libros legendos abiit = he went off to read books
>Genitive ars librorum legendorum = the art of reading books
>Dative libris legendis studet = he is fond of reading books
>Ablative libris legendis multa didicit = he learnt much by
>reading books
>Prep. + Abl. de libris legendis nihil nouit = he knew nothing about
>reading books
Cool beans!
So the meaning of the gerundive depends on its case; and the choice between
gerund and gerundive depends on the transitivity or intransitivity of the
underlying verb?!
Great stuff.
>Just to add to the fun, in the genitive & ablative cases (but not the
>accusative & dative), it was perhaps equally common to use the gerund
>with direct object! So for the above we can also have:
> (c) TRANSITIVE (alternative gen. & abl. constructions)
>
>Nominative libros legere facile est = Reading books is easy
>Accusative libros legere amo = I like reading books etc
>Prep. + Acc. ad libros legendos abiit = he went off to read books
>Genitive ars libros legendi = the art of reading books
>Dative libris legendis studet = he is fond of reading books
>Ablative libros legendo multa didicit = he learnt much by reading
>books
>Prep. + Abl. de libros legendo nihil nouit = he knew nothing about
>reading books
>
>The plain ablative of the gerund in fact came in later Latin to be used
>as an indeclinable present participle :)
>
>It is from this use of the ablative of the gerund (i.e. substantivized
>neuter gerundive) that the 'present participles' of Portuguese, Spanish
>& Italian are derived. The French present participle derives partly from
>this and partly from the Latin present participle since in French the
>two became indistinguishable through phonetic attrition of final sounds.
That's fun, alright. Thanks!
>Also, to add even more fun, while the origin of the Latin present
>present and past participles endings are clearly of IE origin and have
>related forms in other IE languages, no satisfactory explanation has
>been offered for the origin of the gerundive -nd- endings.
Huh! Any guesses? How about the "Lost Languages League"-type guesses?
Thanks, Ray.
>=========================================================================
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 15:16:19 +0300, John Vertical
<johnvertical@...> wrote:
>>Questions;
>
>>(2)
>>Is it a statistical implicational universal that, if a language has both
>>past and present participles, and also both passive and active
participles,
>>that either the past participle is homophonous with the passive
participle,
>>or the present participle is homophonous with the active participle, or
>>both?
>>
>>(3)
>>Is it a statistical implicational universal that, if a language has both
>>perfective and imperfective participles, and also both passive and active
>>participles, that either the perfective participle is homophonous with the
>>passive participle, or the imperfective participle is homophonous with the
>>active participle, or both?
>>
>>(4) What famous languages are counterexamples to the above?
>
>Finnish violates either (2) or (3); I'm not sure whether the difference
>between the 1st and 2nd participles is non-past vs. past, or imperfectiv
>vs.
>perfectiv, but there is still an orthogonal system of four different forms:
>1st activ: juokse|va ilves "the running lynx"
>1st passiv: juos|ta|va matka
>"the distance that is being run / is to be run"
>2nd activ: juos|sut ilves "the lynx that ran"
>2nd passiv: juos|tu matka "the distance that was ran"
Thanks for that example.
>>[MODE, MOOD, AND MODALITY AS CATEGORIES OF PARTICIPLES]
>
>I don't have much to add here, but I like the idea - thanks for bringing it
>up!
You're welcome, of course; but especially, I thank you for explicitly
thanking me. Too often I am not sure anyone finds anything I say
interesting.
>>(9)
>>Do any natlangs or conlangs you know about have an inflection (called here
>>"-9" because I can't think of anything else offhand) that can be added to
>>a
>>verb V to make an adjective V-9 so that "N is V-9" means "N can V"? It
>>seems this would be useful in English; there are common English phrasal
>>constructions with this meaning, but they aren't really verbal morphology.
>
>Hm, I'm sure there was at least one word where "-able" conveyed _this_
>meaning... but I can't off-hand recall anything.
I myself was thinking of the compound "V-capable", among others. These
aren't exactly morphological, but they serve the semantic purposes I had in
mind.
Other languages may serve the same purposes more concisely and/or more
morphologically.
>The prefix form used in "ableminded" etc. might be worth noting, too.
Yes; thanks for mentioning it.
>-Finnish uses compounding with "-kykyinen" (lit. "skilled", "skillful") for
>this purpos. So we have words one might translate as "visionskilled" for
>expressions such as "able to see".
Thanks for that example; that's one kind of the kinds of things I was
asking for.
>>[PASSIVE PARTICIPLES WITH INCORPORATED AGENTS]
>>
>>English has at least a few passive participles with incorporated agents.
>>The agents so incorporated are never definite and never specific. I
>>suppose they may, or may not, be referential; I'm not sure.
>>
>>Examples;
>>henpecked
>>snakebit
>>sunburnt (OK, this one is pretty definite, but it's a coincidence.)
>>grassstained
>>
>>(12)
>>Can anyone think of any more examples in English?
>
>>Thanks
>>
>>eldin
>
>I think you can take just about any noun-incorporated verb or estabilished
>agent-verb or obliq-verb (instruments, sorces, goals...) expression and
>make
>it into a participle:
>steamboiled
>chromeplated
>dentist-approved
>hammerstruck
>spoonfed
>handmade
Probably so.
>The difficulty is in finding an expression where it is indeed the _agent_
>that's estabilished; otherwise it does not work. ("The butterfly landed on
>me" -/-> *"I was butterflylanded")
Right you are.
In "Dentist-approved" it is definitely the agent that is incorporated; and
that agent is indefinite and non-specific, but, if the word is used in an
advertisement, had damn' well better be referential or the advertiser will
get in trouble with the FDA, the FTC, and the ICC.
In "moonstruck" and "sunburnt" it is also the agent which is incorporated.
In these cases it is the coincidence that we have only one sun and only one
moon that makes this agent definite and specific.
On Mars, or Jupiter or Saturn or Uranus or Neptune, "moonstruck"'s
incorporated agent would not be definite nor specific; on Mercury or Venus
it wouldn't even be referential (they don't have moons).
There may be planets in the Centauri system where "sunburnt"'s incorporated
agent wouldn't be definite nor specific, either.
>Apologies for not including any conlang examples in this message - verb
>morphology is not one of my strongest suits.
My suits get strong, sometimes, but once I take them to the cleaners I have
no strong suits anymore.
( ;-)` )
Other responders have posted conlang examples -- Esperanto seems to be the
favorite one so far. I myself posted no non-English examples (though I
referred, in error as it turned out, to Latin), so I am not the person who
could reasonably require your apology. My thanks for all of your natlang
examples -- and also everybody else's examples whether natlang or conlang.
>John Vertical
Thanks, John.
>=========================================================================
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 16:06:44 +0200, Jean-François Colson
<fa597525@...> wrote:
>>>[MODE, MOOD, AND MODALITY AS CATEGORIES OF PARTICIPLES]
>>
>>I don't have much to add here, but I like the idea - thanks for bringing
>>it up!
>
>I think Esperanto has mood as a category of participles, although that's
>not been officialized yet by the Academy:
>
>- la legota libro: the book which will be read;
>- la leguta libro: the book which would be read;
>
>- la legonta persono: the person who will read (that's sure he will read);
>- la legunta persono: the person who would read (if he had time to do so).
Great examples. Thanks, very much.
>BTW what's the difference between mode and mood on a grammatical level?
I am afraid I don't know whether "mode" and "mood" and "modality" actually
_do_ mean anything different from each other when used by linguists.
Maybe (tho' I could be wrong here) they are differentiated when the
linguists in question are talking about cross-disciplinary questions of
(for example) Linguistics&Logic or Linguistics&Philosophy or
Linguistics&Psychology.
So if someone knows I hope they'll tell us. But from the point of view of
morphology of verbs, I think "mode" and "mood" and "modality" might be
regarded as quasi-synonyms.
>=========================================================================
Thanks, Jean-Francois.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 12:20:05 -0400, Jim Henry <jimhenry1973@...>
wrote:
>On 6/19/06, Eldin Raigmore <eldin_raigmore@...> wrote:
>>I wondered whether I ought to use the [THEORY]: tag on this, but decided I
>>shouldn't. In case that was the wrong decision, I apologize.
>>
>>Most natlangs have verbal adjectives -- adjectives derived from verbs and
>>still having some of the characteristics of verbs -- which are
>>called "participles" by their grammarians.
>>
>>Many natlangs have at least two different kinds of participles, differing
>>either in voice, or in tense, or in aspect.
>>
>>Voice: The noun modified by the verbal adjective may be either the agent
>>of the verb -- so the participle is an active participle -- or the patient
>>of the verb -- so the participle is a passive participle.
>>
>>Example; suppose Giuseppe loses his gondola.
>>We could speak of "the losing gondolier" -- "losing" is an active
>>participle;
>>or we could speak of "the lost gondola" -- "lost" is a past participle.
>>
>>Tense: The noun modified by the verbal adjective may have been involved in
>>the situation described by the verb in the past -- a past participle -- or
>>may be involved in such a situation now -- a present participle -- or may
>>be predicted to be involved in such a situation in the future -- a future
>>participle.
>>
>>Examples:
>>I don't think English has future participles; if I'm wrong could someone
>>let me know?
>>But we could speak of "the losing war" ("losing" is a present participle),
>>meaning one we are losing right now,
>>or of "the lost war" ("lost" is a past participle), meaning one we lost in
>>the past.
>>
>>Aspect: The noun modified by the verbal adjective may be (or may have
>>been) in the midst of the situation described by the verb -- yielding an
>>imperfective participle -- or the situation so described may be treated as
>>a lump without temporal parts -- yielding a perfective participle.
>>
>>Example:
>>"the rising sun" -- "rising" is an imperfective participle.
>>"the risen sun" -- "risen" is a perfective participle.
>>
>>Some natlangs have two or all three of these categories distinguishing
>>their participles. I believe -- correct me if I'm wrong -- that Latin, for
>>example, had future active, future passive, present active, present
>>passive, past active, and past passive participles.
>
>As does Esperanto, more or less, though some
>analyze the tense axis as having more to do with
>aspect.
Thanks for the example, Jim. It's precisely the kind of thing I was asking
for.
>>[MODE, MOOD, AND MODALITY AS CATEGORIES OF PARTICIPLES]
>
>>(6)
>>Could a language have an inflection (which I'll write as "-6" due to lack
>>of creativity) that, added to a verb "V", would yield an adjective "V-6"
>>so that "N is V-6" would mean "Somebody ought to get around to V-ing N
>>soon."?
>
>Esperanto's -end suffix has roughly
>this meaning (without the "soon"):
(My approximate gloss was only approximate; I doubt the "soon" is
necessarily part of whatever occurs in other languages, or at least not in
some of them.)
>legenda, ought to be read
Thanks for that example, too.
>>(7)
>>Could a language have an inflection (which I'll write as "-7" due to lack
>>of creativity) that, added to a verb "V", would yield an adjective "V-7"
>>so that "N is V-7" would mean "N ought to V pretty soon."?
>
>I suppose you could use Esperanto's "dev"
>root as a suffixoid in roughly this way; but it's rarely if
>ever used IME.
>
>Studento estas legideva.
>= A student is such-that-e-ought-to-read.
Another example. I appreciate it.
>>English has the suffix "-able" (also "-ible") which, when added to a verb
>>V, yields an adjective "V-able" so that "N is V-able" means "It would be
>>easy or pleasant or possible for someone to V N." IMO this is a modal
>>participle; the mode is one of possibility, the voice is passive.
>
>Esperanto: -ebl. legebla, videbla, etc.
>gzb: -faj. lju-faj, etc.
Thanks.
>>(9)
>>Do any natlangs or conlangs you know about have an inflection (called
>>here "-9" because I can't think of anything else offhand) that can be
>>added to a verb V to make an adjective V-9 so that "N is V-9" means
>>"N can V"?
>
>Esperanto uses the verb root "pov" as a suffixoid
>for this purpose:
>
>vidipova, sighted;
>legipova, literate; etc.
Excellent! Thanks.
>>(10)
>>What of the English suffix "-worthy"?
>
>Esperanto: -ind
>leginda, worth reading;
>vidinda, worth seeing; etc.
>
>gzb -gô covers both Esperanto's -end and -ind:
>lju-gô = worth reading or ought to be read
Good.
>Esperanto's -em suffix, and the gzb equivalent
>-sô, may be relevant: they mean roughly
>"tending to do or be or be partial to [root]".
Good.
>legema, bookish;
>kolerema, tending to be/become angry;
>katema, partial to cats.
>
>gzb has a couple of other possibly relevant
>verb-to-adjective affixes:
>
>-�ra: likely to do ~ soon
>vy-zô: to decide, to will, to intend
>vy-�ra: likely to make up one's mind soon
>
>-zwa ("would-be") is more commonly used with
>substantive roots -- e.g., tyrn-tla-zwa,
>a political candidate; fÄm-hôw-tla-zwa,
>a medical student. But it can be used with
>verbal roots as well:
>
>vy-zwa, a person who strives to be decisive/
>is striving to make up his mind
Good. Thanks.
>A few other gzb verbal suffixes:
>
>-kar: the sort of thing to which one typically does ~
>-Φa: the stuff that results from doing ~
Thanks for these examples, Jim. They are the kind of thing I was asking
for. (Well, I may have been asking for more than one kind of thing. But I
know I was asking for _this_ kind of thing, possibly among others.)
>On 6/20/06, Jean-François Colson <fa597525@...> wrote:
>>>>[MODE, MOOD, AND MODALITY AS CATEGORIES OF PARTICIPLES]
>>>I don't have much to add here, but I like the idea - thanks for bringing
>>>it up!
>>I think Esperanto has mood as a category of participles, althought that's
>>not been officialized yet by the Academy:
>> - la legota libro: the book which will be read;
>> - la leguta libro: the book which would be read;
>>
>> - la legonta persono: the person who will read
>> (that's sure he will read);
>> - la legunta persono: the person who would read
>> (if he had time to do so).
>
>Yes, these are used more commonly IME than
>most other reforms (such as -icx as a masculine
>version of -in).
Interesting. I am glad you told me. I might want to look into that.
>>BTW what's the difference between mode and mood on a grammatical level?
>
>I think they're just alternate terms for the same thing.
As I was using them, yes.
Outside of "the morphology of verbs", they may be something different.
They are surely different outside of linguistics; and perhaps they are in
cross-disciplinary discussions (linguistics & some-thing-ology).
>Or maybe "mode" is a more general term?
I don't know.
Thanks, Jim.
-----
eldin