Re: Using Case to Show Tense

*Looks up at the screen*

>Patrick Littell <puchitao@...> wrote:
> I wonder what would happen when a speaker *actually* needed to use
> passive voice?  I'd have to think about this one for a bit...
>
> A solution:
>...
Murphy's Law in action: I was half-way through the problem when, WHAM,
you post an answer! :-D

> A solution: Since passives and antipassives are intransitives, treat
> them like it.  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*.
Just goes to show that I was so intent on moving everything, that I
was missing all that yummy space available on the verb!

> Non-reflexive oblique objects can, in happy oblique tradition, be
> omitted without ambiguity, but it turns out that leaving out "nose-i"
> would lead to the listener being unable to properly deduce the aspect.
>  Maybe a doubly case-marked "nose-i-a" would shorten it up a bit.
I'm going to look at your take on solution, tweak it a little tonight
to handle this and institute some extra ideas I had, and I will
hopefully post a version tommorow for discussion. So rest your head,
because it is my turn! ^_^


On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 20:11:51 -0500, Patrick Littell <puchitao@...> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 17:25:59 -0500, Patrick Littell <puchitao@...> wrote:
>
> > FUT                 a     a     p
>
> Typo here; should be "a a n".
>
> > I wonder what would happen when a speaker *actually* needed to use
> > passive voice?  I'd have to think about this one for a bit...
>
> A solution: one could have PASS and APASS verb affixes, but only use
> them when then sentence really has passive or antipassive meaning.  If
> the nouns are in the PASS/APASS case paradigms but the verb lacks
> PASS/APASS affixes, it's expressing aspect rather than voice.
>
> Further complication: How, then, does one tell PAST passives from PAST
> PERF passives?  Both would have the PASS affix and cases, because
> they're really passive, but then how is PERF distinguished?  And how
> would one handle PAST PERF antipassives?  That would require the PASS
> *and* APASS voices at once.
>
> A solution: Since passives and antipassives are intransitives, treat
> them like it.  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*.
>
> 1.
> FUT INTR: He-a dance.  "He will dance."
> FUT REFL: He-a himself-n dance-REF.  "He himself will dance."
> FUT PERF: He-i himself-a dance-REF.  "He will have danced."
>
> 2.
> FUT TRAN: He-a nose-n tap.  "He will tap his nose."
> FUT PASS: (He-i) nose-a tap-PASS.  "His nose will be tapped (by him)."
> FUT PASS REFL: (He-i) nose-a itself-n tap-PASS-REF.  "His very own
> nose will be tapped (by him)."
> FUT PASS PERF: (He-i) nose-i itself-a tap-PASS-REF.  "His nose will
> have been tapped (by him)."
>
> Non-reflexive oblique objects can, in happy oblique tradition, be
> omitted without ambiguity, but it turns out that leaving out "nose-i"
> would lead to the listener being unable to properly deduce the aspect.
>  Maybe a doubly case-marked "nose-i-a" would shorten it up a bit.
>
> That's plenty for me today.  Any more and my mind will melt.  Thanks
> for the mental exercise,
> --
> 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
>