Re: Basque Gender Marking (was Re: Further language development Q's)

Thomas R. Wier wrote:

>From:    Tamas Racsko <tracsko@...>
>
>
>>Chris Bates wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I don't think even Inuit can beat this level of agreement lol...
>>>
>>>
>
>I assume by agreement you mean TAM markers.
>
>
Nope, I meant agreement with arguments... agreement with Absolutive,
Ergative argument etc. I was saying I don't think that even Inuit
exceeds Basque because in all the examples of inuit I've seen, the verb
at most agrees with two arguments of the phrase: the Absolutive and
Ergative arguments. Perhaps it can also agree with other arguments, but
I've never seen an example of it, so I don't know. :) A Basque verb, as
I was saying, can agree with: the Absolutive, Ergative, Dative arguments
and also agree with the gender of the listener. Inuit probably does
exceed basque in TAM combinations... The only reason I mentioned inuit
is because it has a reputation as one of the most polysynthetic
languages around. :)

>
>
>>  I am not aware of Inuit grammar, but polysynthetical languages
>>may have additional slots for further case agreement.
>>
>>
>
>If we include all the sorts of specific modal or quasimodal markers
>in Inuit, I would say (based on Chris's description, since my knowledge
>of Basques is not great) that Inuit far exceeds Basque. The following
>is typical:
>
>  Inuttut isikkoqalertarsimasut
>  person  appearance-have-begin-HAB-PERF=PART/3p
>  'Perhaps, they said, they took on human appearance when they died'
>
>Jerry Sadock tells me that these kinds of constructions are actually
>proliferating with modernization in Greenland, since that's how all
>the bureaucrats speak!
>
>
>
This doesn't seem to be exhibiting a vast amount of agreement of the
kind I was referring to... there is certainly a lot of TAM information
in there though. :)

>> I have an
>>example from Sumerian where locative marking is involved in
>>addition:  |mu-na-ni-n-du-{}| 'he/she has built it there for
>>him/her'; |mu| ventive modality: Actor is animate; |na| < |ra| -
>>dative marker: sg3 animate Recipient; |ni| - locative marker; |n| -
>>ergative and aspect marker: sg3 Actor from perfective (=hamtu)
>>series; |du| - verbal stem: to build; |{}| (terminal zero morpheme)
>>- absolutive marker: sg3 inanimate Patient.
>>
>>
>
>I would be very wary about making any arguments from Sumerian.
>Our understanding of its phonology and morphology are based
>almost entirely on how Sumerian words borrowed into Akkadian
>were pronounced, sometimes centuries after Sumerian ceased to
>be spoken as a living language.  It is therefore difficult if
>not impossible to know whether these kinds of collocations that
>you mention are not just cliticized forms, and we can therefore
>not know whether to call Sumerian polysynthetic (to the extent
>that that term has any real meaning).
>
>Anyways, I agree with your general contention.  Basque doesn't
>seem weird by agreeing with so many arguments.
>
>
I wasn't saying basque was strange for agreeing with so many
arguments... I was just saying it was strange for the verb to be able to
agree with the gender of the listener when there seems to be no other
gender based distinction in the grammar. I would have expected second
person gender agreement only if there was a much more extensive system
of grammatical gender, although obviously my expectations were wrong. :)