Re: Newbie says hi

At 7:16 PM -0500 11/8/02, Jeff Jones wrote:
>On Fri, 8 Nov 2002 10:14:18 -0700, Dirk Elzinga <Dirk_Elzinga@...>
>wrote:
>
>> I'm wrestling with similar issues in Miapimoquitch, but the problem for
>> me centers around the switch reference markers. Miapimoquitch shows no
>> formal distinction between 'noun' and 'verb'; all lexical stems are
>> inflected alike. This inflection includes transitivity, which must be
>> explicitly marked for any predicate regardless of its lexical semantics,
>> and a prefix indicating the object (subjects are marked by proclitics
>> and are outside the inflectional system proper.)
>>
>> The switch reference system includes a set of proclitics which mark
>> whether the subject of a subordinate clause is the same as or different
>> from the subject of the matrix clause. Here are a couple of sentences:
>>
>>nkipe aqiiwika  [i'kiB1 a'Ni:wiGa]
>>n-  kipe a=  qiiwi     -ka
>>TR- poke DS= whistle:U -UN
>>'He/she/it poked the (one who is) whistling.'
>>
>> The subject of the subordinate clause is different from the subject of
>> the main clause, and this difference determines the selection of _a=_ as
>> the determiner (glossed here "DS" = 'different subject').
>>
>>nkipe eqiiwika  [i'kiB1 1'Ni:wiGa]
>>n-  kipe e=  qiiwi     -ka
>>TR- poke SS= whistle:U -UN
>>'The (one who is) whistling poked him/her/it.'
>>
>> Here the subject of the subordinate clause is the same as the subject of
>> the main clause, so the determiner _e=_ is used (glossed here "SS" =
>> 'same subject.')
>
><irrelevant>DS= and SS= remind me of the 8086 assembler segment prefixes
>DS: and SS:</irrelevant>
>
>> If you squint, the clitics _a=_ and _e=_ look like case markers since
>> _a=_ appears on a subordinate clause which is coreferential with the
>> object of the main clause and _e=_ appears on a subordinate clause which
>> is coreferential with the subject of the main clause.  This means that
>> there may in fact be a formal distinction between nouns and verbs; nouns
>> have case marking (nee switch reference markers), verbs don't. I'm not
>> entirely pleased with this development.
>
>I'm a little dull-witted today; I don't think I understand this completely.
>The subordinate clauses in these examples are nominalized?
No. At least, I didn't intend them to be nominalizations. They are subordinate
clauses whose subjects are coindexed with an argument of the main clause. In
the first one, the subordinate clause has as its subject an argument which is
coreferential with the object argument of the main clause. This is marked by
the proclitic _a=_, which is glossed 'DS' for "different subject" (i.e.,
different from the subject of the main clause).

In the second sentence, the subordinate clause has as its subject an argument
which is coreferential with the subject argument of the main clause. This is
marked by the proclitic _e=_, which is glossed 'SS' for "same subject" (i.e.,
same subject as the subject of the main clause).

Because of the coreference with the object or subject of the main clause, the
subordinate clause markers _a=_ and _e=_ could also be interpreted as case
markers, and the subordinate clauses they mark could be construed as
nominalizations. Hence, there are parts of speech in Miapimoquitch (at least
nouns and verbs). I don't like it, but I can't think of any construction types
which would tease apart the difference between subordinate clauses and
nominals.

>They're equivalent to relative clauses when DS= and SS= are used as their
>subjects?
>Thus DS= and SS= mark case.
>Are there other proclitic subjects that can occur, that is, what do
>subordinate clauses of fact look like?
There are no distinctions among subordinate clauses between things like relative
clauses, noun clauses, and adverb clauses; the only distinction would be that
some subordinate clauses have the same subject as the main clause, while others
do not.

>What about "He poked the bear" and "The bear poked him" ?
nkipe a'ulese
n-  kipe a=  ulese
TR- poke DS= bear
'he/she/it poked the bear (lit: "(the one who) is the bear").'

nkipe e'ulese
n-  kipe e=  ulese
TR- poke SS= bear
'The bear (lit: "(the one who) is the bear") poked him/her/it.'

>Also, can you give examples with object prefixes?
There are no object prefixes. There are three proclitic person markers:

wa= '1'
ku= '2'
le= '2>1' (i.e., second person acting on first person)

When the transitivity marker _n-_ is present, the first and second person
proclitics mark arguments which act upon a third person.

wankipe a'ulese
wa= n-  kipe a=  ulese
1=  TR- poke DS= bear
'I poked the bear.'

lenkipe
le=  n-  kipe
2>1= TR- poke
'You poked me.'

There are two other prefixes which compete for the transitivity slot: _l-_, which
inverts the hierarchical order of the arguments, and _qa"-_, which is
reflexive/middle. The inverse marker forces the interpretation of the person
proclitics _wa=_ and _ku=_ as objects with a third person subject:

walpike a'ulese
wa= l-   kipe a=  ulese
1=  INV- poke DS= bear
'The bear poked me.'

For the person proclitic _le=_ the inverse marker forces a reading of first person
acting on second person:

lelpike
le=  l-   pike
2>1= INV- poke
'I poked you.'

>In MNCL, the final suffix determines if a wordform is syntactically a verb,
>a coverb, an adjective, or a noun (in which case, it also marks the case).
>I think something like this is necessary, unless the same can somehow be
>marked by position. But it's not the same thing as having a class of words
>that can only take the noun endings.
And my conception of Miapimoquitch is just the opposite; there are very probably
distinctions between entities and events semantically, but in the syntax they
all behave alike.

Dirk
--
Dirk Elzinga                                               Dirk_Elzinga@byu.edu

"It is important not to let one's aesthetics interfere with the appreciation of
fact." - Stephen Anderson