Re: Q's abuot trigger again

From: "Amanda Babcock" <ababcock@...>
To: <CONLANG@...>
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 3:51 PM
Subject: Re: Q's abuot trigger again


> No, you've missed the point.
:( I knew I did not understand it :( I actually thought you'd mark
_everything_ on the verb.

> The following would be trigger sentences, emphasizing each of the
> arguments in turn:
>
> Ibla writeuu an_essayaa my_penii  (the uu from I goes to write when I gets
bla)
> *I* write an essay with my pen.
>
> an_essaybla writeaa Iuu my_penii  (the aa from an_essage goes to write)
> I write *an essay* with my pen.
>
> my_penbla writeii Iuu an_essayaa  (the ii from my_pen goes to write)
> I write an essay with *my pen*.
>
> Does that make it clearer?
>
> Thanks,
> Amanda
Oh yes! Thank you very much. Expressed in a more grammatical way, I mean a
morpheme breakdown, the sentences are:

I-TRIG write-AGT [an essay]-PAT [my pen]-INST
[an essay]-TRIG write-PAT I-AGT [my pen]-INST
[my pen]-TRIG write-INST I-AGT [an essay]-PAT  => why is "to write" the
instrument?

> > As
> > for the other participants, they are *all* optional, and all marked
> > "equally" for their function (agent, patient, location, time, goal,
etc...
> > are not treated differently from others as soon as they are *not* the
> > trigger).
OK, I think that is answered. It doesn't have to be marked. But I still
don't understand why you mark "to write" as an instrument. Actually, you
write with a pen, you don't "pen" with a "write", don't you? Or is it just
because something must be marked as instrument here? Or is it due to the
intransitive-only verbs?
Generally: Has the verb to be conjugated then? Following what? The trigger
or the agent? Or is there no need to conjugate it at all?

> How are sentences done where there are more than one verb [...]?
In sentences like "I see him eating." you've got two verbs. But you could
also say "I see him how he eats" or "I see him, who eats". The problem
should be solved when you do it this way, wouldn't it?

Carsten

Replies