Re: Inverse marking (was: Kijeb text uploaded)

On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 12:39:08 +0200, Benct Philip Jonsson <bpj@...>
wrote:
[snip]
>>>[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.
I see what you mean.
Technically, I suppose, that _is_ "obviation", if not "Obviation".
That is, you _are_ obviating the possible confusion, even though you are
not doing so by means of an "obviative" person-marking.

BTW "Proximative" _does_ have another meaning besides "not obviative".
Googling I find "not obviative" is the _second_ most popular meaning.
More often Proximative is an "aspect" (_I_ think its more of a tense than
an aspect) which is discussed in conjunction with the Avertive "aspect"
(which _I_ think is more of a mood than an aspect).
The Proximative "aspect" is applied to a verb in a subordinate clause to
mean that it had _just_ happened when the verb in the main clause happened.
So it is a kind of relatively-immediately-past tense.
The Avertive, on the other hand, is applied to a verb in a subordinate
clause to mean that it was _just_about_to_happen_ when the verb in the main
clause happened instead, thus preventing the Avertive verb.
So it is a kind of irrealis relatively-immediately-future thing.

[snip]
>>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.
Actually, I think that _function_ deserves to be named "obviation".
The "obviative marking", or "obviative person-marking", or whatever it
should be called, is, as you've indicated, not the only means of performing
the function of "obviation".

Not even in hierarchical-alignment/inverse-voice natlangs.

Some of these perform this disambiguation function by refining the
agent-likeliness hierarchy to what to us seems a ridiculously detailed
resolution; this is one technique, and I feel it would be interesting to
mention it here.

For instance;

* Other things being equal, any air-breathing non-human animal is
considered more agent-likely than any water-breathing non-human animal;

* Other things being equal, any flying vertebrate is considered more agent-
likely than any non-flying non-human animal;

* Other things being equal, any non-human predator is considered more agent-
likely than any non-human herbivore;

* Other things being equal, within most species, any adult is usually
considered more agent-likely than any young;

* Other things being equal, within most species, any male might usually be
considered more agent-likely than any female.

----

Possibly an exception to the last might be made for, for instance,
honeybees; among them, it would seem natural to consider workers more agent-
likely than queens, which would in turn be considered more agent-likely
than drones.

----

I do remember reading a sentence involving a hawk and a fox, in which, if
it were in direct voice, the hawk was the agent, but if it were in inverse
voice, the hawk was the patient; because in that language hawks were more
agent-likely than foxes.

----

eldin