JaiÌƒbi update and request for comment s
|From:||Jörg Rhiemeier <joerg_rhiemeier@...>|
|Date:||Thursday, August 28, 2008, 21:14|
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:17:15 +0100, Christopher Bates wrote:
> [...] If I
> remember correctly, that was something I always used to like about Old
> Albic - it had a nice balance when it came to plain agglutination vs
> other morphological processes.
> > I noticed that your morphosyntax is sensitive of degrees of volition,
> > though it works in a way not very similar to Old Albic.
> Yes, the voice system is very sensitive to volition, and the selection
> of prepositions also depends on it. In terms of similarity to Old Albic,
> there seems to be some similarity between the choice of prepositions in
> JaiÌƒbi and the choice of case in Old Albic, but the verbal systems do
> seem to differ more.
> There seem to be semantic differences (in JaiÌƒbi,
> transitivity does not guarantee the use of a voice indicating volition,
> whereas in Old Albic it seems that all transitive verbs are active),
Yes, in Old Albic all transitive verbs are active.
> differences in morphological realisation (in Old Albic the distinction
> seems to be primarily marked by choice of agreement marker, whereas in
> JaiÌƒbi it is marked by choice of a fused voice/mood marker). I also note
> that you have a separate middle voice, whereas in JaiÌƒbi the middle has
> been integrated into a three term system, which essentially consists of:
> Middle - controlled, actor 'version'
> Active - controlled, non-actor 'version'
> Passive - uncontrolled
> Presumably the middle marker is compatible with both active and stative
> verbs in Old Albic?
No, only with active verbs.
> I find it interesting that Old Albic also has an animacy distinction,
> although it seems to be grammaticalised (ie a grammatical gender system
> rather than a purely semantic classification).
The majority of nouns in Old Albic are in the class expected
from their semantics, with a small number of semantically
inanimate nouns in the animate class. Such irregularities
- often motivated by mythology - seem to be typical of
animate/inanimate systems in natlangs, BTW.
> JaiÌƒbi has semantic
> classification in various areas based on animacy, and I view the
> sensitivity to volition partly as an extension of the semantic
> classification elsewhere into animate vs inanimate. Animacy of referents
> has an effect on selection of possessive markers, demonstratives,
> prepositions, and a number of other morphemes.
> So there are some interesting similarities with Old Albic, but also
> differences. They are both languages which are sensitive to control and
> animacy in the areas of verbal morphology and nominal role marking, but
> the exact distinctions made are not the same.
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf