Re: of cakes and men -- doraya syntax

        (See my reply to Christophe for more details, but a few notes
are necessary here, I suppose:)

On Wed, 10 Nov 1999, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:

> On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, Adam Parrish wrote:
>
> >      4) kos tasa tyepylen.
> >         person 3ps.3pn eat.perf
> >         The person ate it. (person & it = old information, person = topic)
> >
> >      5) rianui tasa tyepylen.
> >         cake.TOP 3ps.3pn eat.perf
> >         He ate the cake. (he & it = old information, cake = topic)
> >
>
> These two seem strange. I would guess that if both S and O
> are represented by a pronoun, that in those cases the verb
> follows the pronoun(s) - but that seems very strange to me.
>
        It's better to think of it as the pronouns being fronted before
the verb.  But why does it seem odd?

> >      7) tai tyepylen rian
> >         3ps eat.perf cake
> >         He ate a cake. (he = topic, old information)
> >
> >      8) rianui tyepylen kakos sae?
> >         cake.TOP perf.eat which-person it
> >         Who finished the cake? (cake = topic, old information)
> >
>
> These two are quite clear, too, though I'm quite surprised that there
> is no marker on the verb in 7), since looks like a verbal argument is
> missing there - I would have expected another tai. Yes, 7) might demand
> further study.
>
        Subject pronoun fronting is mandatory (since, as Christophe
mentioned, they always refer to given information).

> >      9) kakos tyepylen tai rian?
> >         which-person perf.eat 3ps cake
> >         Who finished a cake? (person = topic, old information)
> >
>
> This one is interesting because, in my experience, interrogative
> pronouns are seldom topics - a topic is what the sentence about,
> and in this case you're admitting you don't know what it is about.
> I wonder whether 9) is really correct - perhaps the result of a
> too enthousiastic elicitation session?
>
        This is probably true.  I'm thinking that this question would
probably only be given as a response to some ludicrous unbelievable
statement, e.g.:

        keta mos tyepylen tai rian.
        Kate Moss perf.eat 3pn cake.
        Kate Moss ate a cake.

To which one could only reply,

        *kakos* tyepylen tai rian?
        *Who* ate a cake?

(since, in this case, _kos_ is the topic and the old information, but
_rian_ is still indefinite.)

>
> >     10) kos rianui tasa tyepylen.
> >         person cake.TOP 3ps.3pn eat.perf
> >         The person ate the cake. (?)
> >
>
> As for 10), I really do think your informant was getting tired.
> Or perhaps it could be analyzed as two sentences:
>
> kos.   rianui tasa    tyepylen
> person cake   3ps.3ps eat.perf
> There was this person. As for the cake, he ate it.
>
> No, that doesn't follow - it should be _kos. rianui tyepylen tasa_,
> I guess. Perhaps a sentence-final verb has a distinct meaning which
> is not present in the glosses?
>
        No; given the rule that pronoun contractions are fronted
manditorily, your analysis would be correct.  I'm thinking that
something like "The person and the cake we were talking about?  Well,
the person *ate* the cake." would be the best gloss for 10.

Again, thanks for your feedback!
Adam
----------------------------.
             myth@inquo.net |
http://www.inquo.net/~myth/ |
----------------------------'