Re: Functions of Classifiers (in a conlang)

Hi Chris,

On Sun, 14 May 2006 Chris Bates wrote:
>
> Well, for a project I'm working on I'm trying to develop a system of
> noun classifiers, in the sense that the term is used in "Classifiers: A
> Typology of Noun Categorization Devices" by A. Aikhenvald. She says:
>
> " Noun classifiers characterize the noun and cooccur with in a noun
> phrase. They have been recognised in Australian (Dixon 1977; 1982;
> Wilkins 1989; Sands 1995: 269-70) and in Mesoamerican languages (Craig
> 1986b: 1986c). Their properties have been discussed by Craig (1992;
> forthcoming; 3.2.3 below). In the Australianist tradition, they are
> called 'generic classifiers' or 'generics' (Sands 1995: 269-70; Harvey
> and Reid 1997: 9-10).
>  The definitional properties of noun classifiers is that their presence
> in a noun phrase is independent of other constituents inside or outside
> it. Their 'scope' is a noun phrase. They are a type of non-agreeing noun
> categorization device, their choice being determined by lexical
> seletion, and not by matching any inflectional properties of nouns with
> any other constituents of a noun phrase.
>  Additional, contingent properties of noun classifiers are:
>
> (i) The choice of a noun classifier is based on semantics. Every noun in
> a language does not necessarily take a classifier. (3.2.1)
>
> (ii) Languages may allow the cooccurance of several noun classifiers
> within one noun phrase (3.2.1)
>
> (iii) One noun can be used with different classifiers, with a change in
> meaning (3.2.2)
>
> (iv) The size of the inventory of noun classifiers can vary, from a
> fairly small closed set to a fairly large open set. Consequently, noun
> classifiers can be grammaticalized to varying extents (3.2.3)
>
> (v) Noun classifiers are often used anaphorically; they may
> grammaticalize as markers of syntactic functions (3.2.4)"
>
> Aikhenvald contrasts noun classifiers with the numeral classifiers of
> many East Asian languages, ...
Malayo-Polynesian languages (not "East Asian", I think)
make extensive use of "numeral classifiers", AKA
"numeral coefficicents", also using them as anaphors.


> ... with noun classes (exhibit agreement,
> normally bound morphemes), and with other kinds of classifying device.
> She also mentions that in some languages classification of nouns using
> such a marker is required ("Akatek (Kanjobal Mayan: Zavala 1993: 25-7
> and p.c.) has 14 noun classifiers; they are obligatory as nominal
> adjuncts, and can be used anaphorically").
>  This was what I was planning to do... make the classifiers required
> with all NPs, with differences in meaning corresponding to difference
> choices of classifier. The problem comes when considering two possible
> extensions in the function of such classifiers that, in the case of my
> conlang at least, clash:
>
> (i) As the quoted text from Aikhenvald mentions, many languages use
> their noun classifiers as pronouns. This is a natural extention.
Is that where she says (in your quote):
 "(v) Noun classifiers are often used anaphorically; they may
 grammaticalize as markers of syntactic functions" ?


> (ii) Another possibility is to use the classifiers as THE marker of
> nominality, ie nominalizations of finite verbs can be carried out simply
> by giving the verb a classifier, and the lack of a classifier can turn
> any stem into a predicate (thus making nominality explicitly marked
> rather than associated with certain stems).
Neat -  if you can get awa y with it ....


> Now, there is an issue with combining these two ideas: with the word
> order rules I was considering, and I think probably with any possible
> word ordering, it's too easy to find examples of sentences where the
> classifier is ambiguous in whether it is acting as a pronoun or as a
> nominalizer for a following verb.
Exactly!


> Eg:
>
> MAN.CLS man come and MAN.CLS angry shout
>
> Is this:
>
> The/a man came and he shouted angrily
>
> or...
>
> The/a man came and the angry (man) shouted?
Let's simplify this example first, to the essential
conflict:

 MAN.CLS man come and MAN.CLS shout

Is this:
A previously-unmentioned man came and he shouted
or...
Another man came and the previously-mentioned man shouted
?

This example leads us to focus on the sequence of
reference.  Do you want the same pronoun for the
previously-mentioned as for the newly-mentioned
man?  If not, how do we differentiate them?  I note
that, for example, Ilomi has pronouns for this/that/
the other, allowing three distinct referents of the
same grammatical type, eg person or thing.  IIRC, this
is also true of several natlangs (but can't cite details
ATM).


>  Because of the problems with such a combination, I don't think it's
> realistic to combine the two possibilities (unless someone can cite in
> detail a natlang precedent). And I'm undecided which to go for... the
> use of classifiers as pronouns is a pretty good way of reference
> tracking and is certainly minimalist in that it does not require
> additional third person pronouns, but making classifiers the true
> markers of nominality and relativizers seems to me to be an elegant use
> of the idea too.
Agreed.


>  The issue if I go with (ii) is what to do about third person pronouns.
> There seem to be two major possibilities:
>
> (i) Have a separate unrelated set of third person pronouns. This would
> mean losing distinctions though, since I have no desire to invent
> unrelated pronouns for each noun classifier.
>
> (ii) Somehow build pronouns on classifiers. For example, some ending
> could be added to the classifiers (perhaps an erstwhile generic root?) Eg:
>
> CLS.MAN-PRONOUN.MARKER = "he"
>
> The second solution is easier, but has the downside of perhaps making
> pronouns longer... and, despite the fact that some languages have (some)
> long pronouns like Spanish "nosotros" or Japanese "watashi", I
> personally prefer my pronouns, which are regularly used words, to be
> short. Especially since those languages where pronouns are long (in
> certain circumstances.. compare the Spanish object clitic nos with the
> independent form nosotros) are typically those in which in many
> circumstances pronouns can be dropped (Spanish is pro-drop with
> subjects, and Japanese just loves dropping everything).
>  Anyway, this has mainly been me thinking aloud, but I would welcome
> comments and suggestions please?
Let's try instead -

ii)a) Build pronoun-sequencers on classifiers.
For example, some ending could be added to
the classifiers to mark how far back the
reference to this an entity classified using
this classifier was.  Eg:

 MAN.CLS = "he"
 MAN.CLS-PASTNESS.COUNT = "he, previously mentioned"

More specifically, if MAN.CLS = "le", and if
the first three cardinal numbers are 1 = "sa",
2 = "du" and 3 ='"ti", then:

 "he, just mentioned" = "le"
 "he, mentioned before 'le'" = "le-sa"
 "he, mentioned before 'le-sa'" = "le-du"
 "he, mentioned before 'le-du'" = "le-ti"

I doubt you'd ever want to refer back to a
fourth man, but if you did, this pattern would
be clearly and uniquely extensible.

You could also reverse this pattern:  eg English
permits "the first-mentioned", "the second-
mentioned", and so on.

There may be some overlap between these
pronouns and demonstratives.  Eg "this" and
"that" may connote "the near one", "the far
one", and even "the one upriver", "the one
downriver" or "the one in the bush" ...  Where
reference by location is possible, reference
by counting is less attractive.

Regards,
Yahya

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.5.6/338 - Release Date: 12/5/06