Re: 'Yemls Cases - Comments?
| From: | Jeff Jones <jeffsjones@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Thursday, February 20, 2003, 16:28 |
|---|
On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 12:31:32 +0100, Christophe Grandsire
<christophe.grandsire@...> wrote:
>En réponse à Jeff Jones <jeffsjones@...>:
>
>> Good. Your reply counts as an expert comment, then!
>
>LOL. I didn't mean it quite that way, but thanks anyway :)) .
>
>> More or less. Each case is "officially" named after the prefix that puts
>> it into the subject position. Extrahistorically, the prefixes were just
>> mnemonics for Agent, Patient, and Complement, respectively, but I ended
>> up using the identically written syllables for the orthographic forms
>> (pronounced [gV] or [gO], [bE], and [t_S_hE]).
>
>Nice! :)) . It's true that using the Latin alphabet as a syllabary can
>bring funny things :)) .
That seems to be my claim to "fame" with 'Yemls, since hardly anybody else
has done that. It can sometimes be fun coming up with a word that looks
like it's borrowed from 2 independent sources, one phonetically and the
other orthographically.
>> I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that the presence of the
>> trigger affix depends on the class of the trigger argument (my subject)
>> rather than on the class of the verb (my head word) as I have it?
>
>Exactly. But the underlying argument is the same: you don't give a special
>mark when the behaviour of something is its default one. So in Itakian you
>needn't explicitly mark the function of an actor trigger if the trigger is
>of class 1 or 2, because the human classes are by default active. In the
>same way, in 'Yemls an action verb needed be marked for the A-voice,
>because by default it expect its first argument to be the agent.
Got it.
>> Good question. I've considered a lot of things, including additional
>> prefixes, but what I have been using is a rule requiring the 2nd
>> argument to be present if the 3rd argument is present. This rule doesn't
>> apply if the 2nd argument is undefined. Also, there are probably some
>> situations where it's clear which of the 2 cases is meant.
>
>True. But you may still want to keep a 2nd argument there, even a dummy
>one. This is a very natlangy thing to do :)) .
I will, at least for now.
>> Let's see. For actions, the A-case argument is the agent who is
>> directly involved in the action. For other words, the A-case argument is
>> an indirect agent or cause.
>
>Looks good to me :) .
>
>> The P-case argument is what's affected by the action, undergoes a change
>> of state, perceives or receives something, or is simply an intransitive
>> subject.
>
>It looks like you've taken a bit of split-S in your system too :)) . So P
>also indicates for instance the subject of a verb like "to see".
Yes.
>> The C-case argument "clarifies" an action. It's used as the object of
>> perception, a required complement for relationship words, or as a 2nd
>> "object".
>
>Your system really looks like a Split-S or Fluid-S system.
That's a bonus, finding that out. I wasn't sure which type of system it
was. Although I can follow the explanations about active systems, I can't
tell if they apply to 'Yemls, for some reason.
>> Does that help? I suppose I could come up with examples (using mostly
>> English words) if not.
>
>That helps quite a lot indeed. Thank you for the explanation! :)
You're welcome. Now I wonder if any of the newbies could understand any of
it???
Jeff