Re: Functions of Classifiers (in a conlang)

On 5/15/06, Chris Bates <chris.maths_student@...> wrote:

> This solution wouldn't work in my case because (for another design
> purpose) I need serial verb like constructions, which generally entails
> have sequences of verbs without explicit conjunction. But I may just
> live with the ambiguity... either that or break the general tendency of
> serial verb constructions by having some explicit marker of dependence
> (as in, for example, Lahu IIRC, which adds -le to nonfinal verb in
> serial like constructions. Or I think it was Lahu... I'll have to check).
>
Hmm, that is a dilemma then.

Maybe if the origin of CLS + VERB => NOUN constructions are relative
clauses, we could allow a complementizer to intervene in those cases
where the speaker feels it's needed?  So if the diachronic origin of
the construction is in phrases like "CLS.MAN who walks", "CLS.STONE
that speaks", "CLS.PLANT which burns", etc., maybe we can allow the
who/that/which to show up when needed?

So although it's usually "CLS.MAN walk" "walker", "CLS.PLANT burn" =
"firewood", the speaker could be allowed to add a particle
(etymologically a complementizer) between the two to more clearly
indicate their intention, in those cases where ambiguity arises.
(Like how "either" and "both" are strictly speaking an optional piece
of a disjunctions/conjunctions, but are very useful when nested
conjunctions lead to ambiguity.)

As a side question, in these constructions, what is it that the
classifier modifies?  Is it a verb, a verb phrase, an inflectional
phrase?  Are the following legal?

     CLS.MAN walk quickly = "runner"
     CLS.MAN not eat = "anorexic"
     CLS.MAN not eat meat = "vegetarian"
     CLS.MAN will marry = "fiance"

And may a classifier take as its complement a whole string of serial verbs?

     CLS.MAN enter take leave = "burglar"

-- Pat

Replies