Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: THEORY: languages without arguments

From:Marcus Smith <smithma@...>
Date:Monday, April 24, 2000, 16:49
Tim Smith wrote:

>So does that mean that one of these adjective-like reduced relative clauses >_does_ have to be adjacent to the noun it modifies? And can it either >precede or follow the noun?
I don't know. All of my knowledge of Mohawk comes from Mark Baker's book _The Polysynthesis Parameter_ where he proposes his theory of non-configurational languages (all nominals are adjuncts, agreement is triggered by pro in argument position), using Mohawk as his main example. I could not find any examples of a sentence separating them, but neither could I find any explicit statement that they are ungrammatical. He tended to skirt the issue. Perhaps relevant is the fact that phrases like "my-pet dog" (the way to say "my dog") cannot be separated or rearranged.
>Also, what if a demonstrative or quantifier goes between two nouns, >adjacent to both? How do you know which noun it modifies?
I expect that this would be ambiguous, but I don't know. Baker isn't concerned about that aspect of the language, and uses "pronouns" (verbal/possessive agreement, no overt noun) a lot. I used to think this was a problem with the book since it leaves questions such as yours unanswered; but I have since learned that he has been criticized for using too many nouns in his sentences -- typically Mohawk sentences don't have more than one. Marcus