H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 07:46:52PM +0100, R A Brown wrote:
[snip]
>>So TF is yet another language that has no infinitive, and where we
>>would you an infinitive it uses a clause where the verb is
>>subordinative. i like it!
>>
>>(Thinks: I suppose the subject line should be changed again)
>
> So the original subject line was appropriate after all. :-)
Possibly - if TF's gerund(ive)s aren't really infinitives in disguise :)
[snip]
>>But this [declining infintives] is not particularly abnormal and, of course, has no relevance
>>to TF :)
>
> Actually, this is similar to how TF's gerunds work. (See below.) In
> light of your clarifications, now I'm starting to wonder if TF's gerunds
> are closer to infinitives than I thought.
The thought had actually occurred to me also.
[snip]
>>Now does TF really have gerunds (which are also verbal nouns)? Or is
>>'gerundive' really a better term after all? Or are they something else
>>:)
>
>
> Well, I'll let you be the judge. What I currently call gerunds (or
> "gerundives", but I think you're right that it's not a good term for
> them) work as follows:
>
> 1) As a nominal verb (like the English gerund):
>
> hapasi nijibin so sianas baibai.
> (harm-GND RCP:child CVY) shameful COMPL
> Harming a child (or, the harming of a child) is shameful.
Latin: puerum laedere est foedum
> 2) As reported action:
>
> tara' kei tsana huu na ka'ami nitiki ipuresi so aniin.
> 3sp ORG speak 1sp RCP eat:GND RCP:rabbit CVY:carrot CVY COMPL
> She tells me that the rabbit eats a carrot.
> (Lit., she tells me of the eating of a carrot by the rabbit.)
Latin: illa mihi dicit cuniculum carotam esse
/e:sse/ "to eat" - not /esse/ "to be"!!!
> 3) As a nominalized clause (syntactically identical to (2)):
>
> huu na hamra hapasi nijibin ko aram.
> 1sp RCP see (harm-GND RCP:child ORG) COMPL
> I see a child being harmed (or, I see the harming of a child).
Latin: uideo puerum laedi [passive infinitive]
Note: 'puer' in the earliest Latin was an epicene noun.
There are all nominalized clauses, aren't they? Certainly they must all
be expressed in Latin using an infinitive; a gerund is not possible for
any of those examples.
> 4) As a purpose clause (similar to using a subordinative verb):
>
> diru kei anai na'iat sei hamra'i be asamat nijibin utu eimei.
> girl ORG hold_up cloth CVY see:GND NEG ORG:man RCP:child for COMPL
> The girl holds up the cloth so that the man would not see the child.
> (Lit., "... for the purpose of the not seeing of the child by
> the man.")
Here Classical Latin does not use an infinitive (tho Medieval Latin does
so quite happily). But the problem as far as the classical language was
concerned is that (a) we will need some preposition before the verbal
noun to indicate purpose, and (b) Latin does not allow prepositions to
govern infinitives - it has to use gerund or gerundive construction
instead. *But that is a peculiarity of Latin*. The Romance language
happily put prepositions before infinitives. In French 'pour' (for)+
infinitive is a common way of expressing purpose.
Yes, I have said in other mails in the original thread that where there
is only one (type of) verbal noun it is preferable IMO to call it an
infinitive. I would reserve 'gerund' to describe a second type of verbal
noun if, like English & Latin, it has a different formation quite
distinct from the infinitives.
Yes, I think TF's gerund(ive)s are really infinitives :)
[snip]
>>But I must say I am enjoying this thread. TF is such an unusual
>>language in many respects. Yet it does seem to work. I would dearly
>>love to have it spoken by a community of people to see how it worked
>>out in practice - but I guess that's not likely to happen {sigh}
>
> [...]
>
> Well, if we could convince enough people to learn and master TF ... :-)
> (One can dream, right?)
I think to test fully one needs a L1 TF population - not likely, but
indeed one can dream ;)
> Seriously, though, although there are many things I like about TF, there
> are also places where I feel like the seams are stretching
> uncomfortably.
I think this is almost bound to happen if you depart from the familiar
grammatical structures of natlangs. But this is IMO one of the exciting
things about conlanging, one can try out original structures - even if
they often turn out to be ANDEWisms.
> The prospect of an overly long relative clause sitting
> between a noun and its case particle seems to be pushing the limit of
> how much one needs to keep in mind at any one time --- especially when
> so much semantic load is dependent on that last little word.
One could move the subordinative verb to the front of its clause?
>It could
> very well turn out to be a postposition instead, which would
> significantly change the interpretation of the whole phrase. Too much of
> this may lead to repeated cognitive clash at the end of each NP. I think
> Tagalog had it right with putting case markers in front of the noun. :-)
Now that's another interesting language! Does it actually have (finite)
verbs? But we have, I think, discussed that before on Conlang.
--
Ray
==================================
ray@carolandray.plus.com
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
Nid rhy hen neb i ddysgu.
There's none too old to learn.
[WELSH PROVERB}