Re: Tagalog & trigger idea: I'd like comments. :)
|From:||Roger Mills <rfmilly@...>|
|Date:||Tuesday, November 16, 2004, 17:40|
(original reply went directly to Barry... durn gmail :-(( )
> > On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 12:38:05 +0200, Rodlox <rodlox@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > I was thinking about a conlang that follows the principle of Tagalog
> > > and
> > > what may/maynot be a trigger...
> > >
> > > (my understanding is that Tagalog has, for example, one word that
> > > means
> > > "I,
> > > you" or "I [acting upon] you").
> Barry Garcia wrote:>
> > "Kita" is more like "each other". "Mahal kita" - "You and I love each
> > other"
> Not sure about Tagalog, but that's probably just one use of kita, and I'd
> expect Tag. to use kita in the same way as Malay/Indo. and hundreds of
> kita: basically, 1st pers. plural reference, including the person(s)
> to. So it can have a simple dual meaning, "you and I", or a more general
> plural "I and y'all" or "we and you-sg. ~we and y'all".
> The other 1-plural is _kami_: I/we and other(s) but excluding the
> spoken to. So it can mean "s/he and I", "they and I", "they and we".
> These two forms survive in recognizable (often identical) form in almost
> Austronesian languages; in the few cases where the distinction has been
> lost, it's always the inclusive kita form that survives. (Personal
> experience seems to bear this out: my most common mistake in Indonesian
> using kita when I should have used kami.)
> > > also, I've become given to understand that a trigger doesn't simply
> > > modify
> > > a word (run/ran/running), but it changes the word's entire meaning.
> > >
> Possibly you're thinking of the various derived verbs (like the
> which do often require a different Engl. translation (cf. kill vs. die).
> Barry Garcia:
> > In reference to Philippine languages all a trigger is is an affix on
> > the verb that indicated what part of the sentence is *emphasized* be
> > it the one who does the action, who receives it, who it's done for,
> > where, what was used to do it. The noun that the verb refers to is
> > marked with an affix It does not necessarily change the entire meaning
> > (however, various affixes on a verbal root can give that root a
> > different flavor, from what I've been able to garner.)
> Yes; and in that sense, the various triggered forms might require a
> different verb in Engl. translation. Cf. our recent discussion of "write
> (locative)" vs. "write on (about s.t.)" which has the near-synonym