Re: draqa syntax - help please?

Marcus Smith wrote:

> Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
>
> >Nur-ellen treats this differently.  This is a typical sentence
> >of perception, where the perceiving entity goes into the dative
> >and the object of perception into the objective:
> >
> >Na  i   ben     tir i   jin.
> >DAT the AGT.man see the OBJ.child.PL
>
> Curious usage, but it does make some sense.
"The man" is an experiencer here, the perception is something that
occurs to him.  This use of the dative is also used to express that
something did (or failed to do) erroneously, not intending it, as
in the famous _Na Turin dagnent Veleg mjeln_ example you probably
remember.

> >Without the dative preposition, the sentence expresses deliberate
> >observation:
> >
> >I   ben     tir   i   jin.
> >The AGT.man watch the OBJ.child.PL
> >"The man watches the children."
>
> Nice distinction.  Telek differentiates "watch" and "see" with different
> verbs entirely -- like English.
>
> >In Nur-ellen:   instrumental (_ni_ + objective)
> >               + objective
> >               + benefactive (_an_ + agentive).
> >
> >Ni   i   ven     an`n i   ljös          an  i   bes.
> >INST the OBJ.man give the OBJ.flower.PL BEN the AGT.woman
>
> Why do you treat woman as an agent here?
I don't really do so.  It is just that the preposition _an_ governs
the agentive case.  Most Nur-ellen prepositions govern the objective,
but there are a few prepositions marking semantic roles which require
an animate entity, that govern the agentive.

> >It seems to stand on its own.  It is none of the ones mentioned.
> >No trigger, but also not accusative, not ergative, and also not really
> >an active language.  At least, nothing I'd recognize as active from
> >what little experience I have with relational typology.
> >But interesting out of its own right.
> >
> >It makes the active system in Nur-ellen (or do you find a reason why
> >it is not active, Marcus?) look tame, even with its degrees of volition.
>
> Nur-ellen is a fine active language.  The only oddities are the use of
> agent for a goal
See my comment above.

>       and the fact that the marking is on the noun.  I would
> certainly classify it as active.
Is there any theoretical explanation why active languages are usually
head-marking?

> >Nur-ellen:
> >
> >I   ves       vin.
> >the OBJ.woman OBJ.beautiful
> >
> >Nur-ellen is a zero-copula language; and as "the woman" isn't actively
> >doing anything in this sentence, the case marking is objective.
>
> Instead of calling this a zero-copula language, I would say that adjectives
> are a sub-class of verbs.  Not much of a difference between the two, but it
> does "explain" why they both get tense.  (But what about predicative nouns?)
Adjectives in Nur-ellen normally behave quite noun-like, especially
in being inflected for case.  What fits the facts better is perhaps
that the copula is zero, but recevices tense suffixes which
"fall through" onto the predicative noun or adjective.

> >As I said, predicative nouns and adjectives are marked for tense:
>
> Telek has a copula that only shows up in these exact contexts: if you need
> to add an affix to the verb (agreement, aspect, etc) then the copula is
> used.  Otherwise, it isn't.
>
> >Voromir     gondirent      e        Davrob`l.
> >OBJ.Boromir OBJ.mayor-PAST GEN.PART OBJ.Tavrob`l
> >"Boromir was mayor of Tavrob`l."
> >
> >(Yes, case and tense markers on the same word!  So here is the
> >64,000 dollar question: is _gondirent_ a noun or a verb?)
>
> A noun that has been incorporated into a silent verb. :-)
Yes, that's a good one!  One idea I had how to put it is that the
copula in Nur-ellen is an enclitic with a null stem.  Perhaps a
better term for it than "a noun that has been incorporated into
a silent verb" because verbs in Nur-ellen usually don't incorporate
anything.

> I like the way you put the tense on just _gondirent_ rather than the entire
> phrase _gondirent e Davrob'l_.
>
> >Or, with a zero-copula relative clause:
> >
> >Na  i   ben     tir i   ves       ji  vin.
> >DAT the AGT.man see the OBJ.woman REL OBJ.beautiful
>
> Is that an all-purpose relative marker, or does it change according to case?
It is inflected for case, and _ji_ is indeed the objective form.
I forget to mention that in the interlinear.
There is still much work to be done on the pronouns, anyway.

Jörg.