Re: Inverse marking (was: Kijeb text uploaded)

Eldin Raigmore skrev:
 > On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 15:00:57 +0200, Benct Philip Jonsson <bpj@...>
 > wrote:
 >
 >
 >>Eldin wrote:
 >>
 >>
 >>>These languages are a subset of the alignment-type called
 >
 > [snip]
 >
 >>>participant is the agent or the patient.
 >>
 >>That makes sense.  I'll introduce hierarchical word order in
 >>Kijeb, lest the inverse marking seem somewhat redundant.
 >>However Kijeb also has nom/acc case marking; I'm considering
 >>to restrict the marked accusative to animates.
 >>
 >>
 >>>(The hierarchy in question is usually one of agent-potency
 >>>(that is, potentiality to be an agent), as opposed to topic-
 >>>worthiness, according to M.H.Klaiman.)
 >>
 >>That also makes sense, according to how I understand
 >>the whole animacy hierarchy business.  That's also
 >>why I'ld consider not to mark the accusative on
 >>inanimates: they'ld be patients by default, so to speak.
 >>It also would help to make the introduction of an
 >>ergative system in later stages of the language more
 >>realistic.
 >
 >
 > That would be more like a Split-Ergative alignment, and less like a
 > Hierarchical alignment.
 >
 > The same hierarchy is involved in both types of alignment; but it is used
 > differently in the Hierarchical system from the Split-Ergative system.

I understand the difference, but what I envisage here
is (a) language(s) in transition between types: Kijeb
itself is a descendant perhaps of a language with pure
hierarchical alignment, but which itself has nom/acc
case marking for animates, while the *daughter* languages
of Kijeb have a split-ergative/Fluid-S mixed system,
perhaps without any traces of the hierarchical alignment,
since phonological changes would have done funny things
to the sequences of morphs in the verb word.

Also I think that I don't wan't to copy *everything* exactly
from those natlangs that have hierarchical alignment either,
which would be kind of boring too; clearly a nom/acc
distinction for animates could (partly) perform the same
function of distinguishing two animate participants as the
Proximative--Obviative pronoun distinction does.

 >>[snip]
 >>AFA I understand from Blake's book this is typical of
 >>Algonquinian languages.  The question is if it is *so*
 >>typically Algonquinian that it is unrealistic in a
 >>non-Algonquinian language?
 >
 >
 > I believe there are Meso-American and South-American languages, thousands
 > of miles away from Canada, that have these systems, too.

But they are still all in the Americas, right?

 >
 >>Though Kijeb is spoken in
 >>another universe/timeline, so perhaps it doesn't matter.
 >>
 >>BTW would it be unrealistic for the direct voice to
 >>be unmarked?
 >
 >
 > Not at all; IMO that woud be _realistic_.  The Direct Voice expresses the
 > expected situation (the more animate participant is the Agent, the less
 > animate participant is the Patient); the Inverse Voice expresses the
 > _unexpected_ situation, so it should be "marked".

That was exactly my understanding.

 >>[snip]
 >>What about two *in*animate "third person" participants,
 >>unlikely as it may seem, though you may say "the stone
 >>hit the rock"...?
 >
 >
 > I wondered about that too.  The professionals who write about such
things,
 > however, seem to think the need for obviation is likelier to arise
with two
 > animate third persons than with two inanimate third persons.
 >
 > In any case, clearly, inanimate third persons are less likely to be
 > the "protagonists" of extended portions of discourse than animate third
 > persons.

Of course.

 > Also, perhaps, transitive predications involving two inanimates, are
likely
 > to be the sort of thing where it doesn't matter which one is called
 > the "Agent" and which one is called the "Patient".

Yes, and perhaps obvious from context in most cases.

 >>[snip]
 >>Kijeb as it now is has no obviative pronouns, but it has a
 >>distinction between proximate--medial--distal pronouns and
 >>local adverbs which could be used in that function.
 >
 >
 > "Proximative" has nothing to do with "proximal".
 > "Proximative" is merely the opposite of "obviative".
 > "Obviative" comes from the verb "obviate"; some means is needed to
obviate
 > the confusion over which of two 3rd person animate participants is agent,
 > and which is patient.

I understand that.  What I meant was that you can use the
medial and distal pronouns to sort out who is who:

     He-NEAR he-FAR hit-INV

when  the "FAR" man is the agent and

     He-NEAR he-FAR hit-(DIR)

when it is the "NEAR" man who is the agent, or indeed

He-HERE he-NEAR hit-INV

when he NEAR hits him HERE.

It sure isn't the same as Proximative--Obviative but
it fulfills the function of sorting out who is doing
what to whom.

 >>[snip]
 >
 >
 >>I envisage Kijeb as something of a mixture, with both
 >>Hierarchical word order and verb marking, as well as nom/acc
 >>marking for animates, as well as Split-S/Fluid-S, and the
 >>daughter languages (perhaps not all of them) developing
 >>split ergative marking.  Perhaps it is altogether
 >>unrealistic, or at least highly redundant, to have it all in
 >>the same bag!
 >
 >
 > Perhaps. ;-)

But certainly more interesting.

Eldin Raigmore skrev:
 > On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 15:00:57 +0200, Benct Philip Jonsson <bpj@...>
 > wrote:
 > [snip]
 >
 >>That makes sense.  I'll adopt that (although Kijeb is and
 >>remains verb final).
 >
 >
 > AIUI (IIUC) most switch-reference systems are verb-final, yet I intend my
 > conlang to be verb-initial and verb-second.

And I intend my conlang to be mixed hierarchical and nom/acc!

 >>[snip]
 >>According to Blake it is reasonable.  Subjects are likely
 >>to be animate actors.
 >
 >
 > Ah, ha.

More exactly he says that topics are likely to be animate
actors, and subjects are normally (always?) topics.

 >
 > BTW I forgot now where I intended to insert this, but;
 > not all Hierarchical alignment languages have Inverse Voice systems;
 > and not all languages with Inverse Voice systems have Obviation.

Understood.  I intend to have my conlang have Hierarchical alignment and
Inverse Voice,
but use other means to perform the same function as Obviation, which doesn't
mean that I misunderstand what Obviation is.

--
/BP 8^)>
--
Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch at melroch dot se

    "Maybe" is a strange word.  When mum or dad says it
    it means "yes", but when my big brothers say it it
    means "no"!

                            (Philip Jonsson jr, age 7)

Reply