Re: Greenberg's universals for SVO languages & Caos Pidginruff-sketch

I must have been smoking something when I wrote:

>Chickasaw has the very interesting feature in that the agreement is
>required to
>delete when the two subjects corefer, but the pronoun is optional.  So you
can
>have "He wants go" or "He wants he go" but never "He wants he goes".  To
those
>who care: yes, that is a nominative pronoun accompanying a non-agreeing,
>non-finite verb -- a nice counter-example to part of current case theory.
I was mixing "experience" complements with other ones.

"He wants go" is perfect, normal.
"He wants he go" meaning (X wants X go) is bad, but the same structure is good
for (X wants X be healthy).  In this latter one, agreement is optional.
"He wants he go" meaning (X wants Y go) requires agreement, so "He wants he
goes", but "go" carries a "potential" modal suffix.
Still, in all of these examples, the embedded verb is non-finite, so they are
still counter-examples to much case theory.

Just didn't want to be deceiving the public.








===============================
Marcus Smith
AIM:  Anaakoot
"When you lose a language, it's like
dropping a bomb on a museum."
  -- Kenneth Hale
===============================