Re: More about the morphology of the noun in my NPL

Fabian wrote:
>
> >                                 long form               short form
> >
> > my (inanimate)                  -(u)darc /(@)d@Rk/
> >                                                         -(a)c /(@)k/
> > my (animate)                    -(u)tarc /(@)t@Rk/
>
> This morphology looks decidedly Arabic. Here is the Maltese version:
>
        I didn't think of it but now that you say that, You're very right.

> ktiebi - my book
> ktiebek - thy book
> ktiebhu - his/its book
> ktiebha - her/its book
> ktiebna - our book
> ktiebkom - your book
> ktiebhom - their book
>
> Of course, it gets complicated when you start talking about *books*. The
> root becomes kutub iirc.
>
> > this/that (inanimate)           -(o)cei /(@)k@j/
> >                                                         -(r)i /(R)@/
> > this/that (animate)             -(o)ceiri /(@)k@jR@/
>
> The Arabic comparision breaks down here. Maltese has:
>
> dik  il-ktieb
> this the-book   - this book
>
> dak  il-ktieb
> that the-book   - that book
>
> > resumptive (inanimate)          -(e)pas /(@)p@s/
> >                                                         -(e)p /(@)p/
> > resumptive (animate)            -(e)pasfu /(@)p@sP@/
>
> You lost me here. What means "resumptive"? I *think* it is like my Demuan
> bi/ber (glossed as "said ..."), but I'm not sure. Maybe I just never met teh
> formal name for the term before.
>
        I think the formal term is "resumptive", but maybe I made a mistake. I
think it is something like the Latin is, ea, id, a pronoun or adjective
that reminds what has just been said.

> > The
> > demonstrative (this/that) has only one level of distance (like "ce" in
> > French). Like in French, adverbs or particles can be used to specify.
> > The demonstrative has only a spatial/temporal meaning, the resumptive is
> > used to refer to the last idea discussed. This suffix can also be used
> > with the construct state (even in short form, that's an exception) to
> > show a thing possessed by the last thing discussed, whatever it is
> > (animate or inanimate).
>
> > smar: book ->   smaredarc /smaR'ed@Rk/: my book (formal)
> >                 smarc /sm'aRk/: my book (informal)
> >                 esmarc /Esm'ark/: my books (informal)
> >
> > pecar: dog ->   apecarzleva /apk'aRzl@v@/: her dogs (formal)
> >                 opecarh /opk'aRtS/: his/her dogs (informal)
> >                 pecarpasfu /pek'aRp@sP@/: this dog  (which we've just
> talked > about)
>
        I use this place to correct some things. I was busy with real life and
didn't take the time to re-read my post, and of course I made everything
wrong. As I said, those suffixes don't attract the stress. Hence the
stress in those words doesn't fall on the last syllable and must be
marked by an umlaut (on the other hand, the phonetic transcriptions are
right). So smaredarc is in fact smare"darc, apecarzleva is apeca"rzleva
and pecarpasfu is peca"rpasfu.

> I just realised taht except for the formal verb endings for
> historic/prophetic tenses, I have nothing to indicate formality levels. And
> those endings are really used to mark distance in time rather than
> formality, its just that you dont tend to talk about events of ancient
> history/far flunf future except in a formal context.
>
        The distinction between the long and short suffixes is not only about
formality. I decided to mess the things a little. For example, the
object of a verb is often incorporated in the verb (between the stem and
the subject suffix), and in this case, only the short forms of the
suffixes can be used.

> ---
> Fabian
> If a flying horse ye see, mock ye not if it stays up not.
--
        Christophe Grandsire

        Philips Research Laboratories --  Building WB 145
        Prof. Holstlaan 4
        5656 AA Eindhoven
        The Netherlands

        Phone:  +31-40-27-45006
        E-mail: grandsir@natlab.research.philips.com