Re: just curious.. ;)

Omeina uses auxiliaries extensively, and they are characterised there as verbs that
have to govern another verb
(the auxiliary be- 'negative' for example) - and this can be embedding also (i.e.,
'I should not be here)
Mike
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Aquamarine Demon 
  To: CONLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU 
  Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2001 7:39 PM
  Subject: Re: just curious.. ;)


  >I'd say it depends on what type of a language you've got.  But as a "kind of/sort of" list...
  >
 >1.) Intransitive, non-experiencer: "I walk", or "I'm walking" (the subject is
performing an action >which no one is really affected by, per se)
  >
  >...
  >
  >11.) Performative: "I bet you he won't show up", "I now pronounce you man and wife", etc. (These
  >are called "performative" because the idea is that they perform an action merely by speaking
 >them, so when you bet somebody something, you really bet them; when some holy
fellow >pronounces a couple spouse and spouse, he's supposedly performing the
act right then [even
 >though, due to legal stuff, that's no longer true in most places]. While it's
a class of verbs, many
 >can be intransitive "I bet you can't do it", transitive "I bet a dollar that
you can't do it" and
  >ditransitive "I bet you a dollar that he can't do it".)


  ! Thanks! Very helpful. 

 >A couple of the things you said in your question are things that aren't
really verb types, so much >as things that verbs can be, or things that verbs
can do. For instance, "auxilliary" isn't a class of >verb. Some would argue
that it's not even a thing at all, just a convenient way to deal with
Indo->European languages that do this sort of thing. It's essentially just a
second particle that happens >to be a verb that helps the other verb along,
like "I SHOULD go to the store", "He WAS walking to >the store", "I WILL eat my
dinner". So while those can all be lumped together as "auxilliaries", >they
each perform a very different function, and so, aside from the fact that they
kind of are verbs >and they're not the main verb of the clause, there's no
reason why they should be lumped together >at all.

 Oh... all right. See, I'm no linguist, so I know nothing of this... I really
did need an expl! anation, though. Just so I'm not entirely lost. ;)

 >As for the French example "se laver", if it's taken very literally, it's just
a reflexive, and any >transitive verb can be reflexive; it just means that the
subject is the object, as well: "I wash >myself", "I see myself", "He eats
himself", etc. It's not a verb type; just something they can do. >As for the
other functions this "reflexive" form serves, I think you'd better ask
Christophe or >someone who speaks, because even though he tried to explain it
to me very recently, I still don't >get it.

  Ah, I see... ;)

 >One of the functions might be the so-called "middle voice", which I disagree
with whole-heartedly--I >think it's just a glorified passive with no agent.
Nevertheless, it's in phrases like "The stew cooks >nicely" ("up" is often
added after the verb), "It eats like a meal", "It smells good" (??!?!?). And so
>on and so forth down the line with all th! e "suprasegmental" things that can
happen to verbs. The >main types, though, I think I listed, unless I blanked
and missed some, or unless my theoretical >base is somehow different or wrong.

  You lost me there....

  >Inflectional:
  >zela, noun, "bird"
  >
  >Singular:
  >Nominative: zela (the bird)
  >Accusative: zelo (Subj transitive verb "the bird")
  >Dative: zelin (Subj ditransitive verb direct object "to the bird")
  >Genitive: zelaj (of the bird)
  >
  >Plural:
  >Nom.: zelas
  >Acc.: zeloro
  >Dat.: zelir
  >Gen.: zelajn
  >
  >    versus...
  >
  >Agglutinative:
  >zela, noun, "bird"
  >
  >Plural suffix: -no
  >Accusative suffix: -ha
  >Genitive suffix: -me
  >Dative suffix: -ki
  >
  >"bird" = zela
  >"birds" = zelano
  >I hit "the bird" = zelaha
  >I hit "the birds" = zelanoha
  >I give a ball "to the birds" = ! zelanoki
  >"the bird of the birds" = zela zelanome
  >
 >See, in inflectional, there are different endings for each case, whereas in
agglutinative, there's a >non-changing affix for each morpheme, and it's never
reduced; they just get piled on. I hope that's >a simple (if not
over-simplified), non-controversial explanation of the difference. :)
  >
  >-David

  Oh, I see! Thanks! :)

  >Well, agglutinating languages can have variations in the forms, for
  >example, vowel harmony, where the vowel changes depending on the vowels
  >used in the word.  For example, a common form of vowel harmony is one in
  >which the vowels of the word must be either all front or all back.  So
  >that, for example, you could have a word "keti" or "kotu" (meaning, say,
  >"man" and "house") but not *"ketu" (since /e/ is front and /u/ is
  >back).  Affixes would have two forms, like -to/-tö (meaning, say,
  &! gt;"Genitive"), so the the genitive of _keti_ would be _ketitö_, while the
  >genitive of _kotu_ would be _kotuto_.

  Oh, right... I read a little something about that. Hungarian has vowel harmony, right?

  > There may also be phonetic restrictions.  For example, my Uatakassi forbids /sC/ clusters,
 >simplifying them to /SS/, so that -tas + -ki (ki = /Ci/) (3rd person singular
rational and non->punctual respectively) creating -tassi (/taSSi/)

  That's neat!

 >Basically, an agglutinating language is one in which you simply string
morphemes together, often >subject to certain phonetic adjustments, to create
more complex words.

  Ah, I see.... 

 >In Mandarin (and I suspect in other Asian langs like Japanese) you can say "I
put on the table" >and it would be understood that you put *something* on the
table, even though you didn't mention >it. Of course, there is still this
distinction, sinc! e such a sentence must be in the context where
  >the listener knows what you're talking about.

  That makes sense.

 >In my L1, Hokkien, this is *exactly* the way you express the idea of giving.
In Mandarin you might >say this is similar, although in that case "the book" is
marked as secondary(?) object; whereas in >my L1 literally two verbs are used:
you can say "I take book give you" to imply handing the book >over, or you can
say "I throw book give you" as the equivalent of "I throw you the book".

  Interesting! Makes everything really compact, doesn't it?



  The Aquamarine Demon
  "When I hear somebody sigh, 'Life is hard,' I'm always tempted to ask, 'Compared to what?' "




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Do You Yahoo!?
  Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.