Re: very confused - syntax question

>From: Sally Caves <scaves@...>
>
I wonder how Jennifer is
>using middle voice.  "with my brothers they won the prize for
>themselves?"
>or: "with my brothers the prize wins for them"?   I was wrong to cast it
>as I did in my last example in the passive voice.  I have it firmly in
>my head, for some reason, that your resumptive pronoun "they" had to
>echo the case of "with my brothers," Jennifer.  Better:
>
>... with my two brothers that the prize won (itself) for them...
"Middle voice" has been very misleading, as I see now. It was just the term
I adopted because the inflection "-al" is passive if the subject is a topic
(not focus, thank you Raymond), and reflexive if the subject is an agent.
(And I see now that the terminology "topic" has been widened for Asiteya. Oh
well.)

>
>which is why you are wondering whether "won" should be singular or
>plural.  Am I all washed up? <G>
>
> > >ta rusa-k@-mi siu na a-kanyase ko kanyan-al-ena inya kah
> > >with brother-pl-my two that the-prize TOP.past
>won-middle-they.resumptive
> > >they.resumptive BEN
> > >with my two brothers who won the prize
>
>What is the case of -ena?  What is the double "they resumptive" doing?
>What is inya kah?
"-ena" is the third person plural inflection of the verb when it occurs
inside a relative clause. Defining it as resumptive would make it refer to
the plural antecedent outside the clause, the brothers. Right? I may or may
not keep it.  "inya kah" is the resumptive third person plural pronoun plus
the benefactive case particle.
>

> > >Should "kanyan" be inflected for third person plural?
>Or unless you mean "won" to have as its subject "prize" and not
>"brothers."
>?????
>Sally
I don't think so? I mean, I don't think so. I mean, no, probably. I mean,
(screams)...

Jennifer


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com