Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Whatever Updated

From:Jeffrey Jones <jsjonesmiami@...>
Date:Saturday, July 22, 2006, 21:01
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 15:35:26 -0400, Alex Fink <a4pq1injbok_0@...> wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 19:04:20 -0400, Jeffrey Jones &lt;jsjonesmiami@YAHOO.COM&gt; >wrote: > >&gt;Hi, >&gt;for those who are following this, I've created an alternate explanation of >&gt;the actant morphology at >&gt; >&gt; >&gt; >&gt;I'm especially interested in hearing from those who found the original >&gt;version confusing. > >Some assorted thoughts: > >Is there any VOS-internal reason to postulate "lexical verbs" and "lexical >adjectives" (maybe I missed it on one of your other pages)? Does this just >mean 'words whose English translations are verbs', respectively 'adjectives'? > >The "Argument Structure Classes" table is nice and clear and succinct. It >seems to belong earlier in the description, though, before "Actant Affixes". > >I notice that -Rfx /-ri/ is the only actant marker which can't lose its high >vowel. Is this intentional? > >It's quite sensible that 3I- and 3A- prefixes are null in the indicative and >2S- and 2P- are null in the imperative. I wonder whether it would make more >sense, though, to still call them 3[IA]- and 2[SP]-, instead of 3. and 2., >even when their realization is null. That way you could say, for instance, >that the third singular animate and inanimate subjects are always marked by >3I- and 3A-, when they're not marked by 3H-, and that they're just realized >as zero in certain contexts. > >Your new explanation seems to have lost any mention of when to actually use >3H- and -3D, except to say that they're not used on a main verb. > >But maybe I can work out what 3H- does. Re the "phrasal usage" section, >when you nullify an argument, is the nullified argument the one that's taken >as the referent of the "syntactic noun/adjective" as a whole? I infer this >from your examples, especially (3) (8) (9) (10) where this seems to explain >the things you've translated as relative clauses (in (3) a cleft). So it >appears that in this situation, when you want A1 to appear as an argument >phrase and not be nullified (i.e. be the referent), 3H- is called for. Is >this right? >And when you say about -3A and -3I > If both appear, the one whose argument is nullified is the one whose > gender is required by the situation >--- that's because there will be animacy agreement on whatever predicate >this is an argument of, so that one can tell what the referent of this >"syntactic noun/adjective" is supposed to be, yes? > >Still in the dark on -3D, in part 'cause there are no examples of complement >clauses or adverbial clauses. > >Alex >=========================================================================