>
> When I saw the subject line of this thread, I was hoping for
> enlightenment.
> Maybe someone has posted something which clearly explains this and it is
> waiting to be downloaded. But so far, I remain confused.
>
> First of all, let me see if I am clear about the general meaning of
> 'trigger'.
>
> David Crystal does not mention 'trigger' in his "A Dictionary of
> Linguistics and Phonetics"; but Larry Trask does give a definition in his
> "A Dictionary of Grammatical Terms in Linguistics", namely:
> "Any element in a sentence which makes some requirement elsewhere in the
> sentence. For example, a subject NP which requires agreement in the verb
> is said to 'trigger' agreement in the verb, or to act as an agreement
> 'trigger', the verb being the agreement 'target'. Similarly, a verb or a
> preposition in a case-marking language may trigger a particular case form
> on the object NP."
>
> Now that I do understand. Indeed, I have quite often used the verb 'to
> trigger' this way without any thought of its being jargon or a special
> term - it is just 'natural' English as far as I am concerned. I would not
> normally bother to use the nouns 'trigger' and 'target', but I see
> nothing
> unusual here and can well believe that in certain contexts it might be
> clearer to use the nouns.
>
> So:
> In the sentence "I am a hobbit", _I_ triggers the verb form _am_, whereas
> in "He is an orc" _he_ triggers the form _is_. In both sentences the verb
> "to be" is the target. In the first sentence _I_ is the trigger & in the
> second sentence _he_ is the trigger.
>
> OK - we saw in a recent thread that the initial consonant mutations in
> the
> modern Celticlangs were once phonologically conditioned ('triggered'),
> but
> through both phonetic decay and analogy, have become _grammaticalized_ in
> the modern languages.
> So if we take 'pen' (head) as the _target_:
> - in "fy mhen" (my head) - _fy_ (my) is the trigger that triggers nasal
> mutation, causing the target to become _mhen_;
> - in "ei phen" (her head) - _ei_ (her) is the trigger that triggers
> spirant mutation, causing the target to become _phen_;
> - in "ei ben" (his head) - _ei_ (his) is the trigger that triggers soft
> mutation, causing the target to become _ben_'
> - in "eich pen" (your head) - _eich_ (your) triggers no mutation.
>
> Hopefully, all this makes sense. Basically I have been "thinking
> aloud" to
> clarify in my own mind what 'trigger' means (as defined by Trask).
>
> The other problem in the current thread that I have read so far seems to
> be the common confusion between 'focus' and 'topic', which is not
> helpful.
> So let us see.
> ==================================================================
>
> On Tuesday, November 16, 2004, at 03:01 , B. Garcia wrote:
> [snip]
>
>> In reference to Philippine languages all a trigger is is an affix on
>> the verb that indicated what part of the sentence is *emphasized*
>
>
> Right - in English we use emphasis either to mark the focus, or to mark a
> contrast with some other element. So:
>
> 1. Do I assume that what is being marked is indeed the focus?
> 2. Is then the target the emphasized element?
> 3. As not all sentences have focus, do 'non-focused' sentences have a
> trigger affixed to the verb? If so, why?
>
>> 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.
>
>
> OK - so the affix on the verb is the trigger and the NP is the target.
> The
> verbal affix triggers an affix on the NP?
>
> Is there no way of emphasizing any thing else than a NP?
>
> I can understand something like this happening if there is fixed word
> order and there is no other means of emphasis (for whatever reason).
> But I
> had understood that fronting was a feature of the Philippine languages. I
> may, of course, be mistaken; but if I am not, how does this triggering
> relate to fronting, if at all?
> ============================================================
> On Tuesday, November 16, 2004, at 04:08 , Sally Caves wrote:
> [snip]
>
>> Can you give an example of the various triggers in a Philippine
>> language?
>> Or
>> even just a made-up one?
>
>
> AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!
>
>> I've been trying to understand triggers for years,
>> but have only seen people describe them in this abstract way.
>
>
> Me also - at least as far those darn 'Philippine/Austronesian triggers'
> concerned.
>
>> For instance, in your above statement you remark that the affix is on
>> the
>> verb. And then in the next sentence you say it's on the noun. Are
>> there
>> two affixes?
>
>
> Yep, that's certainly what I understood - but, like Sally, I am not 100%
> sure.
>
>> Please show me and Rodlox with an example.
>
>
> Sally, Rodlox and me :)
> ====================================================
> On Tuesday, November 16, 2004, at 07:10 , H. S. Teoh wrote:
> [snip]
>
>> Now, given the verb ("to give"), and the 3 NPs filling its 3 semantic
>> roles, there are several different ways of realizing it as a sentence
>> in Tatari Faran. Here is where the "triggeriness" comes in: as long as
>> we keep to the same verb and the same set of NPs, the *factual
>> content* of the utterance does not change. However, the *emphasis* may
>> change.
>
>
> I fail to see how this is "triggeriness". Changing emphasis does not
> require triggers (tho it may be effected with the aid of triggers, I
> guess)
> .
>
>> In Tatari Faran, one of the NPs in a given utterance is made
>> the "subject" (i.e. trigger, in the Tagalog sense), or the center of
>> attention, one might say.
>
>
> Emphasis suggests 'focus', but both "subject" and "center of attention"
> suggest 'topic' - which ain't the same thing.
>
>> This NP will always be the first NP to
>> appear in the sentence.
>
>
> The focus, if any, appears first in Welsh - but it does not use any
> trigger.
>
>> In the indicative mood, this NP precedes the
>> verb, whereas the other NPs follow the verb. For example:
>>
>> kiran ka kira firasa sei diru nei esan.
>> young_man ORG give flower CVY young_lady RCP COMPL
>> "The young man gives (a flower/flowers) to the young lady."
>>
>> (_esan_ is the verb complement, which is not relevant to our present
>> discussion.)
>
>
> In English the sentence has no focus and "the young man" is the topic. In
> Welsh the sentence is:
> Mae'r dyn ifanc yn rhoi blodau i'r ferch ifanc.
> Is the man young YN giving flowers to the lady young. [YN is a particle
> marking the predicate]
>
>> In this particular sentence, "young man" is made the "subject", the
>> center of attention. Hence, another way to translate this might be:
>> "It is the young man who gives flowers to the young lady."
>
>
> Now the "young man" is no longer the topic; he has become the _focus_. In
> welsh this is:
> Yr dyn ifanc sy'n rhoi blodau i'r ferch ifanc.
>
>>
>> This happens to be in the familiar English word order. But let's now
>> consider other possibilities. We may, for example, wish to emphasize
>> that it is to the young lady that the flowers were given. We do this
>> by simply fronting "young lady", and relegating "young man" to the
>> back of the sentence:
>>
>> diru nei kira firasa sei kiran ka esan.
>> young_lady RCP give flower CVY young_man ORG COMPL
>> "The young lady was given flowers by the young man."
>
>
> No, no. In the English _passive_ the "young lady" is the topic.
>
> If we wish to emphasize that it is the young lady who got the flowers we:
> - either simply emphasize the young lady: "The young man gives flowers
> *to
> the young lady*" [Usual method]
> - or we may front the young lady, thus: "It was to the young lady (that)
> the young man gives flowers".
>
> In Welsh this is:
> I'r ferch ifanc mae'r dyn ifanc yn rhoi blodau.
>
>> (Note that although the English translation resorts to the passive
>> voice, the Tatari Faran retains the same verb, and merely changes the
>> word order. In fact, it has no concept of active/passive; they are one
>> and the same.
>
>
> Yes, and it appears that Tatari Faran has no concept of topic/focus -
> treating them both the same way, which is a tad confusing IMO.
>
> [snip]
>
>> We could also decide to emphasize the fact that it was *flowers* which
>> were given to the young lady by the young man, in which case we would
>> front "flowers" and leave the young man and young lady in the back:
>>
>> firasa sei kira kiran ka diru nei esan.
>> flower CVY give young_man ORG young_lady RCP COMPL
>> "Flowers were given by the young man to the young lady."
>
>
> Presumably the Tatari Faran example corresponds _both_ to:
> Blodau mae'r dyn ifanc yn rhoi i'r ferch ifanc = The young man gives the
> young lady *flowers*/ It's flowers the young man is giving (to) the young
> lady ['flowers' is the focus]
>
> .._and_ to:
> Mae blodau cael eu rhoi i'r ferch ifanc gan y dyn ifanc = Flowers are
> being given to the young lady by the young man ['flowers' is the topic].
>
> [snip]
>
>> How is this related to triggers?
>
>
> Yes, how indeed? In the above Tatari Faran sentences what is the trigger
> and what is the target?
>
>> In comparison, an accusative language treats the roles quite
>> differently: to make an object the subject, one has to change the verb
>> into a passive one and make the previous subject a prepositional
>> phrase;
>
>
> Not at all! Welsh fronts the direct object if it wishes to make that
> object the focus; German fronts the direct object if it wants to make
> that
> the topic. Neither language need resort to the passive. Yet both are what
> are classed as "accusative languages"
>
>> to make an indirect object the subject, one has to put both
>> the original subject and object in prepositional phrases in addition
>> to switching to the passive voice. To make a locative NP the subject,
>> another, different mechanism would be employed.
>
>
> Once again - not so.
>
>> Based on this, I would propose that Tatari Faran, indeed, does exhibit
>> triggeriness.
>
>
> It exhibits _fronting_ - whether for focus or topicalization is not
> clear.
> But I see no "triggeriness".
> =================================================
>
> On Tuesday, November 16, 2004, at 09:44 , Henrik Theiling wrote:
> [snip]
>
>> Hmm, I would not say this is triggerish, but I'd say the language uses
>> word order to mark the focus, just like German.
>
>
> Eh? I had always understood that German fronted the _topic_, not the
> focus.
> In "The Structure of German", Anthony Fox gives these examples (the
> bracketed translations & comments are mine):
>
> Was hat sie ihm zum Geburtstag geschenkt? (What has she given him
> for
> his birthday?)
> Zum Geburtstag hat sie ihm ein Buch geschenkt. (For his birthday she gave
> him a book.)
> [In the answer, "Zum Geburtstag" is the topic; the focus is "ein Buch".
> According to my understanding, if "ein Buch" is to be emphasized, it not
> fronted (as it would be in Welsh), it is simply emphasized just as it
> would be in English, i.e.
>
> Zum Geburtstag hat sie ihm EIN BUCH geschenkt.]
>
> Wird sie ihm zu Weihnachten ein Buch schenken? (Will she give him a
> book for Christmas?)
> Nein. Ein Buch hat sie ihm zum Geburtstag geschenkt. (No. She gave him a
> book for his birthday).
> [In the answer "Ein Buch" is the topic; the focus is "zum Geburtstag". If
> the focus is to be emphasized, my understanding is that the sentence
> stays
> in the same order thus:
>
> Nein! Ein Buch hat sie ihm ZUM GEBURTSTAG geschenkt.]
>
> Now is Fox mistaken? Could some one answer the question "Was hat sie ihm
> zum Geburtstag geschenkt?" with "Ein Buch hat sie ihm zum Geburtstag
> geschenkt."?
>
> [snip]
>
>> I think that's the point. The system I see is focus by word order,
>> not triggers.
>
>
> The system is either focus by word order (a la Welsh) or topic by
> order (a
> la German) but, I agree, it has nothing to do with triggers.
>
>> Triggers as I understand them involve changing the verb
>> form to indicate which role is the trigger, and then requiring the
>> trigger case for that role.
>
>
> So the role is the trigger and the verb is the target? The NP which is
> marked - whether for topic or for focus - triggers a particular verb
> form.
> That makes sense.
>
> But it is the exact opposite of Barry's explanation above!
>
>> (The other roles may keep their case
>> marking or be changed as well, depending on language).
>>
>> This is similar to voices, but also different, since usually triggers
>> mark *roles* instead of purely syntactically changing case assignment,
>> and they usually do not demote anything to obliqueness. Marking roles
>> is the reason why trigger languages often have more choices for
>> triggers that for cases (Tagalog, if I remember correctly, has five
>> (or only four?) choices for triggers on the verb, but only three
>> cases).
>
>
> This is interesting - and I can see sense in what Henrik is writing here.
> But actual examples would help a lot.
>
>> At least, this is my understanding. Triggers have created so much
>> confusion here
>
>
> They have indeed!!!
>
> [snip]
>
>>> Based on this, I would propose that Tatari Faran, indeed, does exhibit
>>> triggeriness.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> Hmm, I don't think so, since the system is really identical to that of
>> German, which is clearly accusative and never even has anyone I met
>> considered that it had triggers. :-)
>
>
> Basically, I agree with Henrik here (unless it's closer to the Welsh than
> the German system :))
> ====================================================
>
> Whether Tatari Faran is an "accusative language" or not, is another
> matter.
> At present, it these darned "Tagalog triggers" that I am interested in.
>
> I do have "Lessons in Basic Tagalog for Foreigners and Non-Tagalogs"
> dating from the 1950/60 period - but it does not mention 'triggers'! I
> suppose I could work my way through the book and try to figure out just
> what these darn things are about. But it would be nice to have it
> explained clearly, simply and unambiguously with examples.
>
> Ray, still confused by these Philippino triggers
> ===============================================
>
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
> ray.brown@freeuk.com
> ===============================================
> Anything is possible in the fabulous Celtic twilight,
> which is not so much a twilight of the gods
> as of the reason." [JRRT, "English and Welsh" ]
>
>