Conlang: Re: THEORY: Cross-Referencing the Arguments of Consecutive Verbs, And Similar Things (Jeffrey Jones, Jul 4 '05, 4:42)

>Tom Chappell wrote at 2005-06-30 17:49:29 (-0700) > > > [WHAT ABOUT A MAIN AND A SUBORDINATE CLAUSE?] > > So far the examples I've given have either been co-ordinate clauses > > or what the Role-and-Reference Grammarians call "co-subordinate" > > clauses. > > > > But there's no reason I know of to doubt that some natlang out > > there does something similar for marking the common arguments > > between a main clause and its subordinate clause. > > > > Who knows one? > >I think the use of long-range reflexives in e.g. Eskimo-Aleut >languages might qualify (or at least interest you as a related topic). > >Here's the section from Mithun's _The Languages of Native North >America_ on the subject - I think I've posted it before, but I can't >find it in the archives. Fortunately I had a copy saved for other >reasons, so I didn't have to type it out again: > >| 2.1.2 Long-distance coreference and empathy >| >| Reflexive constructions, which mark coreference between the subject >| and another argument of clauses, appear throughout North America, as >| elsewhere: Mohawk _wa'k*atát*ken_ 'I saw *myself*'. Some languages >| also contain devices for specifying coreference over longer stretches >| of speech, termed variously fourth persons, long-distance reflexives, >| coreferential third persons, logophoric pronouns, and more. Examples >| of such structures can be seen in languages of the Eskimo-Aleut >| family. >| >| In Central Alaskan Yup'ik, as in related languages, all verbs contain >| pronominal suffixes referring to their core arguments, one for >| intransitives and two for transitives. Posessed nouns contain >| suffixes referring to the possessor and the possession. >| >| (10) YUP'IK PRONOMINAL SUFFIXES Elizabeth Ali, speaker >| paqeta*nka* ila*nka* >| paqete-a-*nka* ila-*nka* >| visit-INDICATIVE-*1SINGULAR/3PLURAL* relative-*1SINGULAR/3PLURAL* >| '*I* visited *them*' '*my* relative*s*' >| >| The pronominal suffixes always appear on verbs, whether or not >| independent nouns appear in the sentence as well. The verb and noun >| in (10), for example, could be combined into a sentence. Gender is >| not distinguished in Yup'ik, so the same pronominal forms are used for >| males, females and objects. There are two different third person >| categories however, one basic and one for arguments coreferent with >| the subject of the matrix clause. >| >| (11) YUP'IK COREFERENTIAL THIRD PERSON Elizabeth Ali, speaker >| Tuai-llu-gguq tauna tutgara'urluq, >| tuai=llu=gguq tauna tutgar-'urlur >| so=too=HEARSAY that grandchild-dear >| 'And so that dear grandchild, >| >| apa'urlu*ni* kenekenga*miu* >| apa-'urlur-*ni* keneke-nga-*miu* >| grandfather-dear-*3R.SG*/3SG love-CONSEQUENTIAL-*3R.SG*/3SG >| because she (*herself*) loved her (*own*) grandfather, >| >| neqkanek assilrianek, >| neqkaq-nek assir-lria-nek >| prepared.food-ABLATIVE.PL good-NM-ABLATIVE.PL >| paiveskii. >| paivte-ke-ii >| put.out-PARTICIPIAL.TR-3SG/3PL >| she was putting out good foods [on his plate]. >| >| The subject of the main clause in (11) is the grandchild. She is >| referred to by a basic third person pronoun in the main verb >| _paivesk*ii*_ '*she* put them out'. In the embedded clause, 'because >| *she* loved her grandfather', she is referred to by the coreferential >| pronoun because the subject of the subordinate clause is the same as >| that of the main clause. The coreferential pronoun appears in '*her* >| grandfather' as well, indicating that the possessor of the grandfather >| is the same individual as the subject of the clause in which it >| occurs: 'she_i loved her_i grandfather'. (Basic reflexives are >| expressed in a different way in Yup'ik. >=========================================================================

From:	Jeffrey Jones <jsjonesmiami@...>
Date:	Monday, July 4, 2005, 4:42