Re: Functions of Classifiers (in a conlang)

On 5/15/06, Chris Bates <chris.maths_student@...> wrote:
> > The ambiguity between the two isn't especially odious, so long as
> > you're going for a naturalistic lang.  This is relatively minor
> > compared to some other sorts of ambiguity we find in natlangs.
> >
> Really? Do you know an example of a language which uses classifiers for
> all three functions?
>
No, because I don't know of any language that does (ii) -- the regular
use of classifiers as the sole exponent of nominalization.  I'm just
saying that the ambiguities that might come from the confusion of (i)
and (ii) are pretty minor compared to the real ambiguities that real
natural languages allow.  (There are plenty of languages, for example,
in which "Chased man dog" could happily mean either that the man
chased the dog or the dog chased the man.)

This avoidance-of-ambiguity-at-all-costs is a conlanger thing, not
something inherent in language.  There's nothing wrong with *deciding*
to make your language unambiguous across the board, of course, but
there's nothing unnatural about ambiguity; having ambiguous sentences
isn't a design flaw unless you want it to be.

> > Of course, if one of your design goals is the minimalization of
> > ambiguity, then here are the beginnings of two possible solutions:
> >
> > - Make the classifier precede its NP (as above) and use a verb-initial
> > constituent order.
> >
> > - Make the classifier follow its NP and use a verb-final constituent
> > order.
>
> I don't think this solves things if classifiers also function as pronouns:
>
> VERB INITIAL ORDER
>
> see I CLS.MAN walk go
>
> I saw the walker and I/he went
>
> or:
>
> I saw him (the man) and walked off
>
"see I CLS.MAN walk go" isn't ambiguous just because of the ambiguity
between nominalizing and pronominalizing classifiers -- it's ambiguous
because there's no overt conjunction and the verbs "walk" and "go"
here don't take any overt arguments.

To quote myself, "here are the *beginnings* of two possible
solutions."  Just having verb-initial order doesn't eliminate the
ambiguity if other syntactic features introduce it.  But it will if
you set about to form a syntax in which no nominal element ever
precedes a verbal one.  It isn't a difficult exercise.  For example,
you can get there with a strict VSO order, no sentence-initial topic
or focus slots, overt conjunctions, and overt complementizers required
for embedded clauses.  There may be additional ways to introduce i/ii
ambiguity, but none of them are insuperable.

"see I CLS.MAN and walk I and go I" isn't ambiguous, and it's not even
ambiguous (between i and ii, at least) if we allow null arguments:
"see I CLS.MAN and walk and go".

-- Pat

Reply