Re: Trigger language?
|From:||H. S. Teoh <hsteoh@...>|
|Date:||Monday, January 20, 2003, 15:53|
On Sun, Jan 19, 2003 at 10:20:01PM -0500, Josh Roth wrote:
> >This is a very interesting thought. So this means that essentially, I can
> >add trigger marking to Ebisedian,
> I think you should've added some evil laughter right there :-)
I thought it should've been obvious enough. >:-)
> >How would you describe such an odd system? :-)
> Perhaps 'locational' - for the case system that is, not all the other things
> that go with it! Rather than focusing on who performed an action and who felt
> it, E's cases are, as I am seeing it, based on where they start and stop, and
> what has its location changed (the conveyant).
OK, maybe my examples weren't very well chosen. :-) You are right that
much of it is 'locational'; however, the 'locations' involved are
sometimes metaphoric rather than physical. One example is:
I(rcp) see(v) beauty(cvy) her(org)
"I see her beauty."
I(org) look(v) her(rcp)
"I look at her."
Not only so, but entire sentences or even paragraphs can be "subordinated"
into a "noun":
I(org) say(v) <cvy-subclause>go away</subclause> her(rcp)
"I said to her, 'go away!'."
<org-subclause>he(org) injure(v) past(loc) me(rcp)</subclause> city(org)
"Because he injured me, I left the city."
He(org) insult(v) her(rcp) <rcp-subclause>she(cvy) shame(rcp)</subclause>
"He insulted her so that she was in shame/embarrassment."
In each of these examples, the subclause (or embedded sentence, if you
will) behaves like a noun of the indicated case in the containing
Also, the name of the instrumental case is possibly a misnomer; the
originative case is used for the source or origin of an event, and the
instrumental is used for the "dynamo" or "propellent" that drive the event
to its completion. So while you do use the instrumental in cases like "I
rode the horse to town" (translated as "I(cvy) horse(instr) ride(v)
town(rcp)"), you also have the following:
I(org) give(v) gift(cvy) her(rcp) --> I gave a gift to her
I(instr) give(v) gift(cvy) her(rcp) --> I delivered the gift to her.
<instr-subclause>he(org) injure(v) past(loc) her(rcp)</subclause> she(cvy)
anger(rcp) --> the fact the he had injured her (continually) drove
her to anger.
> If you imagine a hierarchical classification, with several broad
> categories at the top, 'locational' could be one, along with a system
> where nouns are divided up as mentioned above, i.e., according to who
> performed an action and who felt it (e.g., Kar Marinam, active
> languages), and a system where syntactic positions determine case (this
> could include nom-acc and ergative as well as tripartite langs). Of
> course the lines are a bit blurry here and there....
Refresh my memory, what's a tripartite lang again? :-)
> I have a question. You gave the example: "I see a man" --> "I(rcp) see(v)
> KM would do this "I(senser) see man(focus)"
> (Senser, remember, might as well be Patient. The word order would be reversed
> too, but never mind that.)
> To say "He shows me the man," I would add "He(agent)"
> How would E render this, since the originative is already used? I imagine
> you'd have to use a different verb, or add in another sentence or "because
> of..." or something. The instrumental is somewhat tempting, but if we
> happened to add "with the binoculars"="binoculars(inst)", that would already
> be used too.[snip]
Depending on context, this could be variously rendered:
1) he(org) cause(v) man(cvy) <rcp-subclause>see(v) I(rcp)</subclause>
Literally, "he causes the man to be seen by me".
2) he(instr) cause(v) man(cvy) <rcp-subclause>see(v) I(rcp)</subclause>
Same as (1), except that this also implies some effort on the part of
3) he(org) make-appear(v) man(cvy) I(rcp)
He shows the man to me. Basically, using a different verb as you
For the binoculars part, it's a totally different construct depending on
the context. If he is showing me the man by giving me the binoculars, it
man(org) see(v) <subclause...>binoculars(instr) I(rcp)
where the subclause would have the effect of "he(org) give(v)
binoculars(cvy)". I.e., "I see the man through the binoculars he gave me."
(I'm omitting the details so as not to bore you with the intricate
workings of subclauses in Ebisedian.)
Of course, this sentence can be rearranged in many ways, one of the
perhaps more interesting of which is "adjoinment", which is basically two
sentences "rammed" together at a common word:
he(org) give(v) I(rcp) binoculars(cvy)-(instr) see(v) man(org) I(rcp).
Basically, this is "ramming" together "he(org) give(v) I(rcp)
binoculars(cvy)" and "binoculars(instr) see(v) man(org) I(rcp)".
Morphologically speaking, the instr case marker *prefixes* the word for
binoculars in the first sentence. A rough translation of this would be "he
give me the binoculars through which I see the man".
Note, however, that it is perfectly legal to have more than one noun per
noun case, which may or may not have the same semantic function. Word
order may become important in this case. Examples:
I(cvy) go(v) city(rcp) house(rcp) woman(rcp)
"I go to the city, to the woman's house."
Literally, this reads "I go to the city, to the house, to the woman."
woman(org) city(org) go(v) I(cvy)
"I left the woman and went out from the city."
Literally, "From the woman, from the city, I left."
Only boring people get bored. -- JM