Re: draqa syntax - help please?

On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 02:24:37AM +0200, Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
> "H. S. Teoh" wrote:
[snip]
> > Very interesting! It does seem to resemble the way my conlang handles the
> > verb to see, at least as far as using the receptive (dative) case is
> > concerned.
>
> Yes, there is a parallel in it.  Here, our langs are actually pretty
> close to each other.  The main difference is that you cast the object
> of perception in an agent-like originative role, while in my lang,
> it is not actively involved and thus takes the objective case.
Agent-like? Well, I don't really think of it that way :-P  My conlang
doesn't really distinguish between whether the noun is actively
"transmitting sight" or not; the fact that it is somehow, actively or not,
by whatever means, transmitting its own sight to others is the main reason
for the originative case.

[snip]
> > (Just in case you're wondering, "zotuw'" is the perfective deliberative of
> > "zota'". I didn't indicate this in the interlinear to avoid clutter and
> > possible confusion. If you *really* want to know, though, the deliberative
> > must be used here to properly convey the meaning of "watch" -- if I used,
> > say, the incidental, the sentence would read "The man happened to look at
> > the children" -- i.e., he isn't actively watching them, but just
> > happened to look in their direction.)
>
> It is this deliberative/incidental distinction that is expressed by
> choice of agentive vs. dative in Nur-ellen.  (The dative also has
> more straightforward uses; see my translation of your example 1) and
> the comment below.)
Cool. But keep in mind that the deliberative marking on the verb isn't
restricted to the "subject" noun (whatever "subject" is -- my conlang
lacks that concept). In a pathological context, the verb "zotuw'"
(perfective deliberative) *could* mean that the man just happened to look
at the children, but it was by no blind luck; somebody prearranged the
situation to be such that the man would happen to look in that direction.

This interpretation is possible because, again, my conlang focuses on the
*event* (i.e. the verb) itself, and not so much on the nouns involved in
the event. The deliberative marking on the verb simply means that the
event was no accident -- it could mean that the man deliberately looked at
the children, or it could mean that somebody else has planned for it to
happen. Which interpretation to take depends on the context it appears in:
if you heard that sentence in isolation, you'd probably pick the former;
but if that sentence appeared in a suspense thriller, you might be more
inclined to pick the latter.

[snip]
> > > Ni   i   ven     an`n i   ljös          an  i   bes.
> > > INST the OBJ.man give the OBJ.flower.PL BEN the AGT.woman
>
> Instead of the benefactive one could also use the dative here.
> This is the "more straightforward" use of the dative I mentioned
> above.  The difference between dative and benefactive is that
> the benefactive implies that the person marked this way actually
> benefits from the action, while the dative is neutral to this
> regard.  There is also a malefactive, which expresses that the
> person suffers from the action:
[snip]

I see, again, that the case marking is chosen very much from the
perspective of the noun itself, contrary to my conlang, which looks at the
noun from an impersonal perspective and assigns the case according to its
role in the "bigger picture" of the event being described.

[snip]
> In Nur-ellen, the instrumental is used for the following:
>
> 1. An instrument by which an action is performed:
[snip example]
>    This usage includes vehicles:
[snip another example]

Same usage in my conlang.

> 2. An inanimate agent, which in Nur-ellen is seen as an instrument
>    by which someone else does something (not necessarily volitionally):
[snip]

The instrumental in my conlang doesn't necessarily need someone else to
operate/use it to perform something. The main idea behind the instrumental
is, for lack of better descriptions, like a dynamo or power supply that
*propels* the event (the verb) to its completion. It could be the
instrument used by someone to accomplish the event; or it might just be
something like the force of gravity propelling the falling motion of an
apple until it hits the ground.

> 3. An animate entity acting on behalf of someone else:
>
>    Ni   i   ven     an`n i   ljös          an  i   bes.
>    INST the OBJ.man give the OBJ.flower.PL BEN the AGT.woman
>    "The man delivers the flowes to the woman."
>
>    The idea behind this usage is that the agent performs the role
>    of an instrument by which someone else achieves something.
Although my conlang has the same usage, it looks at it from another point
of view -- the instrument (agent) who delivers the flowers to the woman is
the driving force that propels the act of giving to its completion.

> 4. An animate entity acting under force, against its will:
>
>    Ni   in  Ilj`l      dregent   o    i   Rjömin.
>    INST the OBJ.Elf.PL flee-PAST from the OBJ.Roman.PL
>    "The Elves fled the Romans."
>
>    The Elves are in instrumental because they did not flee because
>    they wanted to, but rather because they found themselves forced
>    to flee by the Romans.
This one is definitely different from my conlang. I would translate the
above sentence with the *Romans* in the instrumental case (or the
originative case, depending on whether you are emphasizing the elves'
fleeing or the fact that it's the Romans who cause them to flee), and the
elves in the conveyant case.

[snip]
> > Hahaha! Is my conlang really *that* off-the-wall? :-P
>
> No, it isn't.  But it is very interesting, and unlike anything I have
> yet seen and understood.
Heh. And *I* find my conlang tamer than trigger languages :-P
I guess familiarity means a lot in perception :-)

[snip]
> > Cool! Well, my conlang can have stative sentences with more than two
> > nouns, too, though I haven't worked out all the details yet.
>
> You mean, predicative nouns can be transitive?
Yes, but that wasn't what I was referring to. Certainly, transitive
constructs can be a reason of a stative sentence with more than two nouns
-- because my conlang likes omitting conjunctions:
        k3'      c3'        r33'      k0'rumi.
        red(cvy) green(cvy) blue(cvy) color(loc)
        "Red, green, and blue are [among the] colors."

There's an implicit conjunction between each pair of the conveyant nouns
in this example.

But what I was referring to was stative sentences that have more than two
noun cases involved. As I said, I haven't fully worked out the system yet,
so I can't give any real examples at the moment. Such constructs would
express the relationship between the three or more nouns *as a whole* --
there is no focus on a particular noun such that you'd call it the
"subject" and the other nouns "predicating" it.

[snip]
> > I'd say, it's something like a participle. After all, participles do have
> > both case and tense markings (esp. in natlangs like Attic Greek) :-P
>
> It's rather the inverse of a participle in being a noun taking on
> verb inflection.  In fact, it is a noun with an enclitic zero
> copula which is inflected for tense ;-)
Heh, cool. :-)

[snip]
> > My conlang would simply insert a temporal noun in the locative case, to
> > indicate that it's talking about a previous state which may or may not
> > hold in the present.
>
> Such as "The woman [is] beautiful last Friday"?
Something to that effect, yes. It doesn't have to be a specific time,
though -- you could just use a past temporal noun that simply places the
event in the past.

>  In Nur-ellen, this
> would be
>
> I   ves       vin           ad  Orbelt     vjedy.
> the OBJ.woman OBJ.beautiful LOC OBJ.Friday OBJ.last
>
> The present tense means that she might still be beautiful, while the
> past tense would mean that she is no longer.
The presence of a past temporal noun in my conlang would almost always
cause the sentence to imply that the woman is no longer beautiful. If you
were referring to the fact that she looked beautiful last Friday at the
party, you'd also include a locative noun for "at the party" to clarify
that it was at the party (in the past) that she was beautiful. Without
this clarification, your sentence would be understood as hinting that she
is no longer beautiful.

[snip]
> >       The case
> > markings depend very much on whether the noun is actively doing something
> > (agentive), or is passive (objective), or neither (ablative, etc.). My
> > conlang makes distinctions along different axes, so to speak.
>
> Very interesting axes, indeed.
[snip]

Well, I tried to be original! :-P


T