Re: Using Case to Show Tense

Hi!

>On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 03:38:21 -0500, Patrick Littell <puchitao@...> wrote:
> This gives you six aspects instead of three, without adding any new
> mechanisms to the language.  The only tricky part is that you can't
> REFL a transitive verb without changing its meaning, so first it has
> to take *real* voice and then undergo the process for intransitives.
Well, perhaps it isn't so tricky after all. A working definition of a
"true" reflexive in this language is that the suffix defines other
roles the explicit object takes. If we simply leave a, let's say,
"blank" reflexive, this says the explicit object takes no other
"extra" roles, and allows the existence of another object. This is not
a large step for the language, as it will already have forms for all
the cases: why not use the base form? This allows us to fill in that
"transitive reflexive" gap in the table:

(Refl:X is any form of the reflexive that signals the alternate role
of the explicit object.)
(Refl:0 is the "blank" reflexive.)

0                            =  I danced.
Refl:X                       = I was dancing.
Refl:X-Pass             = I had danced.
Refl:X-Pass-Refl:0    = I had been dancing.
Refl:X-Apass          = I began to dance.
Refl:X-Apass-Refl:0 = I was beginning to dance.

0                    = I ate the cat.
Refl:0             =  I was eating the cat.   <==
Pass             = I had eaten the cat.
Pass-Refl:0    = I had been eating the cat.
Apass          = I began to eat the cat.
APass-Refl:0 = I was beginning to eat the cat.


On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 03:38:21 -0500, Patrick Littell <puchitao@...> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 06:25:03 -0500, Edward Miller <sewerbird@...> wrote:
>
> >  Because I like to overwork my affixes...;-D... it occurred to me to
> > make the reflexive take the case, rather than do a double-case. How
> > this is handled is likely going to be phonological, but, for sake of
> > simplicity, we'll assume there are REF forms for each case.
> >
> > Thus:
> >
> > FUT REFL: He-a feed-n:REF. "He will feed himself."
> >
> > The reflexive points to the remaining argument and says what other
> > role it satisfies, essentially.
>
> I like this.  Double-case-marking is an ugly solution unless there's
> already double-case in the language.
>
> [Thinks out loud again, renaming p "ABS", n "NEU", and a "NOM".]
>
> Borrowing further from Georgian, one could have genitives agree in
> case with their heads (suffixaufnahme).  From this arrive new
> double-cases GEN-ABS, GEN-NEU, GEN-NOM, GEN-INS, etc.  Then, make
> patients in the antipassive take genitive instead of dative.  (Like in
> the English antipassive "Whosoever eats of this bread...")  Then,
> aspectual voice added to a true antipassive (the nose example)
> wouldn't require any new suffixes, because gen-a already exists.
>
> Then just find a use for an INS within a noun phrase.  My choice would
> be how, by whom, or where the head is made.  Statue-NEU knife-INS-NEU
> = "carved statue", leek-ABS fire-INS-ABS "grilled leeks", medicine-NOM
> Sam-INS-NOM "medicine made by Sam."
>
> Now all the required double-cases have other uses within the system.
> It'd be clear whether Sam-INS-NOM is an instrumental adjunct or just a
> "dummy reflexive" by whether or not (respectively) there exists any
> other NOM in the sentence.
>
> This system won't handle the cases of reflexivized intransitives, only
> the cases of those passives/antipassives derived from them.  Not a big
> problem, since the reflexivized intransitives weren't meaningful on
> their own, really; only as a middle step in the derivation of perfect
> passives, etc.
>
> I'm not really suggesting you do this as an alternative, since I like
> your system as it is.  Just thinking out loud.
>
> > >Use the solution mentioned before: add a "dummy"
> > > reflective affix to an intransitive verb to make it transitive -- say,
> > > with an emphatic meaning -- and then add voice to *that*.
> >
> > Hrm... I don't think I want an emphatic meaning like that, unless
> > "Reflective" and "Reflexive" are different? I thought they were the
> > same, but if they are different, might be a good idea to have one be
> > emphatic, and the other not.
> >
> > This might give different flavors to the verb... mmmmmmmmmm....
> >
> > Reflexive: He-a won-n:REFX it-DATIVE "He won himself it."
> > Reflective: He-a won-nREFC it-DATIVE "He himself won it."
> >
> > ...or something like that :-)
>
> "Reflective" was just a typo.  Mostly I was just trying to think of a
> possible meaning for a reflexive affix added to an intransitive verb.
> This isn't by itself a meaningful operation, so sometimes speakers
> will use it for something else.  In Classical Nahuatl you find
> something like this quite frequently to show respect, iirc; you add a
> reflexive affix and then another affix to cancel it.  "Look how much I
> respect you; I've just wasted two additional syllables of breath on
> you with no reasonable grammatical function."  Something like that.
> :-P
>
> ---------------------------------------
>
> A benefit of your solution:
>
> The above double-case idea doesn't allow one to keep sentences in
> their mid-derivation "dummy reflexive" state, unless one allows
> ugliness like NOM-ABS.  But the mid-derivation reflexive could be
> useful: you could use *that* to double the number of available
> aspects!  Reassign the antipassive to inceptive -- a better fit, by
> analogy to accusative:future, anyway! -- and then use the reflexive
> for progressive.  Below is a sample; on the left is the derivation
> process the sentence undergoes and on the right an example
> translation.
>
> 0                            =  I danced.
> Refl                       = I was dancing.
> Refl-Pass             = I had danced.
> Refl-Pass-Refl    = I had been dancing.
> Refl-Apass          = I began to dance.
> Refl-Apass-Refl = I was beginning to dance.
>
> 0                    = I ate the cat.
> Pass             = I had eaten the cat.
> Pass-Refl    = I had been eating the cat.
> Apass          = I began to eat the cat.
> APass-Refl = I was beginning to eat the cat.
>
> This gives you six aspects instead of three, without adding any new
> mechanisms to the language.  The only tricky part is that you can't
> REFL a transitive verb without changing its meaning, so first it has
> to take *real* voice and then undergo the process for intransitives.
>
> --
> Patrick Littell
> PHIL205: MWF 2:00-3:00, M 6:00-9:00
> Voice Mail: ext 744
> Spring 05 Office Hours: M 3:00-6:00
> --
> Watch "reply-to"!
>