Re: Focus, please

Hey, Yahya!

I'm going to guess that most people didn't read all the way to
the bottom of your message, and consequently didn't see the
question reproduced here (or, if they did, may have failed to
notice that it's replying to you, not to the Conlang-L! [Though
I see Alex beat me to it!]):

Yahya:
<<
In light of these observations and questions, the final paragraph
invites
actions, many of which (it seems to me) members of this forum would be
singularly well-equipped to undertake.  I, too, would like to:
"encourage the presentation of diachronic data related to the
evolution of
different strategies of focus marking" "and focus interpretation" -
but in
the context, not of natlangs, but of conlangs.  My particular
question to you
all at this point is this:

	How have you chosen to mark and interpret focus,
	and how and why have these choices evolved?

I'm well aware that this list has discussed focus in the past, but
right now
I'd like to tap your collective wisdom and experience.  Hopefully,
your replies
will enable me to assemble a survey of practice in this area; a
second phase
might explore the underlying theories.
 >>

I can give you something in at least two of my languages.

Kamakawi already marks whether the subject of a sentence
is new or old as follows (look at the first word of the sentence):

Sentence 1: Ka mata ei i nawa.  "I(i) saw a fish(j)."

Sentence 2a: Ke mata i ne.  "(And then) I(i) saw a segull(k)."
Sentence 2b: Ka mata nea i ne.  "(And then) she(l) saw a seagull(k)."
Sentence 2c: Kae tikili.  "(And) it(j) was orange."

So those are the three markers.  In (2a), the subject is the same,
so you use /ke/ and the subject is dropped.  In (2b), the subject
is new, so you use /ka/ and the subject is specified.  In (2c), there's
a new subject, but it came from the previous sentence.  Since
there's only one possible entity that that could be (the fish), the
subject is dropped.

This mechanism affords one with a number of possibilities where
focus is concerned.

In a neutral context, there are two strategies, similar to English.
Taking Sentence 1 as an example:

(1a) Ka mata ei i NAWA.  "I saw a FISH."
(1b) I NAWA ka mata ei.  "It was a FISH I saw."
(1c) Ka mata EI i nawa.  "*I* saw a fish."
(1d?) EI ka mata i nawa.  "It was ME who saw a fish."

(1d)'s a litlte bizarre.  Instead, I would passivize the sentence
and front the resulting PP:

(1e) Ka mata'u nawa ti'i.  (Note: /ti'i/ = /ti ei/)
(1f) TI'I ka mata'u nawa.

The same would hold for Sentence 2b.

With a sentence like 2a, though, subject focus becomes much
more simple:

(2a) Ke mata i ne.
(2a') Ke mata EI i ne.

Here, the prominence associated with /ei/ is unnecessary, as
the presence of the subject along with the subject status marker
is indication enough that the subject is focused.  It's a natural
side-effect of an argument being focused, though.

The end result is the use of one or more of the following strategies:

(a) Stress prominence.
(b) Fronting.
(c) Reintroduction of redundant/non-necessary elements.

With Zhyler, it's a bit different; a bit simpler (or more simplistic).

In Zhyler, you can do one of two things, depending on what
type or level of focus you want.  In an ordinary sentence, you
can focus any element with the suffix -tFk(i).  This is illustrated
best by a sentence with a lot of nominal elements:

(3) sexa ZijkMS tSelvenejlef amSar ezdZez vesler.
/man-nom. woman-ben. dog-plu.-top. book-acc. house-ine. wrote/
"The man wrote a book about dogs for a woman in the house."
[Note: The woman isn't in the house.]

Given that sentence, you can focus any nominal element by
adding the -tFk(i) suffix.

(3a) sexatexi ZijkMS tSelvenejlef amSar ezdZez vesler. (Subject)
(3b) sexa ZijkMStixi tSelvenejlef amSar ezdZez vesler.  (Beneficiary)
(3c) sexa ZijkMS tSelvenejleftexi amSar ezdZez vesler.  (Topic)
(3d) sexa ZijkMS tSelvenejlef amSartexi ezdZez vesler.  (Direct Object)
(3e) sexa ZijkMS tSelvenejlef amSar ezdZezdexi vesler.  (Inessive)

That's kind of a preliminary focus--simple focus.  If you want to
*really* focus on something, though, you strip its case and pull it
out front with the -tFk(i) suffix:

(3f) EZDZETEXI sexa ZijkMS tSelvenejlef amSar vesler.

Now, though, it's up to the hearer to figure out what role that
element played in the sentence.  You could keep the case suffix
on there, but it wouldn't be as usual.

***

A separate element for both is emphasizing verbs.  Is that the
same thing, or is it something different?  E.g., "I ATE the eggs;
I didn't DYE them."  With Kamakawi, it's just stress; with Zhyler,
I'm not sure...  There are a number of possibilities.

-David
*******************************************************************
"A male love inevivi i'ala'i oku i ue pokulu'ume o heki a."
"No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn."

-Jim Morrison

http://dedalvs.free.fr/