Re: MNCL5 Phonology and Orthography

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 06:56:48 -0500, Alex Fink
<a4pq1injbok_0@...> wrote:
>
>On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 17:35:27 -0500, Jeffrey Jones
<jsjonesmiami@...>
>wrote:
>
>>I've attempted a different (and much longer) explanation of the grammatical
>>voice suffixes.
>
>Taken together this is all quite clear.  I do however get a better
>high-level grasp of the system from the subject and object role table on
>your morphology page.
Thanks. I guess I'll keep the table, although I don't know if it belongs in
morphology or syntax.

>>MNCL5 "Participles"
>>
>>MNCL5 non-verb forms are sort of like participles in some other languages,
>>only the same general system is used regardless of whether the stem is a
>>verb-, adjective-, or noun-type stem. Of course, the noun- and adjective-
>>stem forms aren't normally considered participles! They're mentioned below
>>for completeness.
>
>Are there any fundamental differences between noun- and adjective-stems,
>and verb-stems, beyond those accounted for by typical choice of argument
>roles?
They differ in which TAM suffixes are likely to occur and in semantics.

> Can they all take verb forms, as well?
Yes.

>>There are four types of participles in MNCL5. The 1st is constructed without
>>adding any special suffix. The others are constructed with the following
>>suffixes:
>>2nd: -m- suffix
>>3rd: -t- suffix
>>4th: -g- suffix
>>
>>Which of these can occur depends on the word stem's argument structure.
>
>Would I be right to say that a given stem can in all cases take all
>participle types
>- whose subject role is among its arguments; and
>- if there are multiple arguments (i.e. if the stem is transitive), one of
>whose object roles is among its arguments ?
Yes.

>That is, are there participles that one would expect to exist on argument
>structure basis, but simply don't, or vice versa?
>
>>Whether or not the participle must be preceded by an "object" (in the
>>genitive case) also depends on the argument structure.
>
>This is simply determined by transitivity = taking two or more arguments,
>right?
Yes. I guess I should phrase it in terms of transitivity.

>Is it then ungrammatical to omit the genitive complement of a transitive
>participle?  I.e., how would I say "the dog that got bitten"?  Introduce an
>explicit argument, as "the dog that something bit"?
Yes. The indefinite pronoun |o| is used for that, as in _zo o baito hunda_. The
downside of this is that I have to figure out the exact argument structure of
every word.

>>For reference:
>>
>>http://qiihoskeh.googlepages.com/M5Morpho.htm
>[...]
>>Most noun stems, most adjective and other static verb stems, and some
>>monovalent dynamic verb stems (those with involuntary subjects) have only
>>the 1st participle. The verb stem participles are translated as either
>>passive or active participles in other languages,
>
>English, at least.  I'd be tempted to call it a quirk of English's own
>alignment; granted, this is without stopping to reflect on how widespread it
>really is.
I think most Germanic and Romance languages are similar. But maybe I should
say English specifically.

>>depending on the aspect.
>
>[...]
>>For noun stems, the object of a 1st participle is typically translated as a
>>possessor:
>>
>>zo viro handa -- "the man's hand"
>
>Interesting.  The analysis that had occurred to me of the same forms _zo_,
>_no_ serving as pronoun and definite article is that the _-o_ is here
>serving appositively, as opposed to as a genitive: _zo handa_ "hand (that
>is) it.A" = "the hand"; not, as the genitive interpretation would have it,
>"his hand".
Right about apposition, but _zo_ goes with animate _viro_, not inanimate
_handa_, and _zo handa_ would still have to mean "his hand", since the need
for an object/possessor takes precedence. "The hand" would have to be _no o
handa_ (literally, "the someone's hand").

>Although I guess it's reasonable for "the hand" and "his hand" to be
>expressed the same way too.  Or is "his hand" _zo zo handa_?
>
>>The 3rd participle could be used like this:
>>
>>zo ruyo teilto fogla -- "the red-tailed bird"
>
>Neat, and logical.
>
>Which noun stems are transitive?  Is _teil-_ among them?
Yes, body part names and kinship terms are the main types.

>If not, I suppose this might be a counterexample to my generalisation about
>participle selection being determined by the set of argument roles.
>I'm tempted to make some analysis involving something that behaves like a
>verb-stem 'belong to' with participles 1 and 3, i.e. roles P and T, but with
>no phonological form... but this doesn't quite work (and smells a bit like
>overtheorising).  Did you have anything like this in mind?
The static verb-stem |af-| meaning "belong to", does fall into this class, as in:

Zo hunda afe Jonok.
3A-ADJ dog-PAT.SG belong_to-PRS John-THM.SG
"The dog belongs to John."

This allows the 1st participle  of |af-| to act as a possessive quasi-suffix:

Jonafo hunda
John.GEN.SG-belong_to-ADJ dog-PAT.SG
"John's dog"

The same verb can also be translated as "have" if the P role argument is
indefinite:

Jonok afe hunda. -- "John has a dog."

>>3rd) no zo ciko geb'to libra -- "the book that was given to the child"
>>The 3rd participle refers to what's given and the object to the recipient.
>>
>>4th) no zo viro geb'go libra -- "the book that the man gave"
>>The 4th participle also refers to what's given, but the object refers to the
>>donor.
>
>Interesting to see that when the subject role is the theme, the object role
>isn't left to context to disambiguate.  I take it that, when the theme
>exists, patient and agent = recipient and donor are both likely to be
>animate, and therefore would be pragmatically more confusible than the other
>pair of arguments, and so therefore you brought in extra participles to
>distinguish.
Exactly.

>
>Alex