Re: Infinitives & gerunds

H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 10:20:57AM +0100, R A Brown wrote:
>>What I meant to say is that the words concerned show inflexion for the
>>three core cases of nouns. I was referring to _ka'aman_ and _arapan_,
>>which are both inflected for receptive case. If these words have
>>receptive case inflexion then, surely, they must in some way function
>>as nouns.
>
> Hmm. I think there must be some miscommunication here. These case
> inflections do *not* indicate the function of the verb/infinitive in the
> main clause, but rather the function of the subject NP in the infinitive
> clause.
I did understand that the case inflexions of the infinitive did not
indicate the function of the infinitive as it relates to the main
clause. I understood from what you said, and from what you have repeated
above, that the inflexion showed how the infinitive related to the first
NP (subject NP) of the infinitive clause itself. But.......

> IOW, if the infinitive is receptive, that doesn't mean that it's
> receptive wrt. the main verb. Rather, it indicates that the subject NP
> in the main clause is to be understood as functioning as a receptive
> argument to the infinitive.
Ah - so do I understand that 'subject NP' referred to above is the
subject NP _of the main clause_? In that case, I did misunderstand. So
the case flexions of the verb/infinitive do not indicate the case of the
verb/infinitive itself but rather how the subject NP of the main clause
is related to the verb/infinitive - interesting (but then that's only to
be expected of TF   :)

I see - so are they really nominal at all? Are they really infinitives?
FWI I do not think they are participles.

Now I think I've finally understood what's going on, I think I agree
with you that they are not nouns. This means, of course, not
infinitives. I see that on the web-site you refer to them as
subordinative forms. That's what they are: they're _subordinatives-  :)

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)

[snip]
>>>
>>>I'm not so sure about the noun part.
Yep - I now agree: they are not nouns - not infinitives. They're
subordinative _verbs_.

[snip]
>>>Maybe they are more like participles than infinitives?
No - I don't think so. They're subordinative( verb)s   :)

[snip - now that we agree (I think)]
>
>
>>There are, as I have written in an earlier mail, languages that do
>>inflect the infinitive (e.g. Turkish) and, as far as I can see, there
>>is no intrinsic reason why they should not be inflected.
>
> How do they inflect their infinitives? Or, more importantly, what do the
> inflections mean?
By adding the same suffixes as are added to oblique cases of the noun.
So in the sentence 'I love to write/I love writing' it has the
accusative ending. If the sentence were 'I take the liberty of writing
to you', 'of writing' is the genitive of the infinitive. 'I refrain from
writing' - the infinitive has the ablative ending, etc.

But this is not particularly abnormal and, of course, has no relevance
to TF    :)

[snip]
>>>	That old woman
>>>	baan      ikaren   muras kuinin  sei
>>>	old_woman CVY:shoe black own:RCP CVY
>>>	The old woman who owns the black shoes.
>>>The syntactic nesting of this last is:
>>>	(baan ((ikaren muras) kuinin) sei)
>>>Since the relative clause is in adjectival position, a literal
>>>translation might be something like "the black-shoe-owning woman".
>>>Seems more like a participle than an infinitive to me, although
>>>again, not agreeing with the head noun in case,
>>
>>Exactly! Therefore IMO not a participle.
>
> Oh?
See above - 'kuninin' does not agree with 'baan'; it is a verb (a
subordinative verb) with an inflexion which shows that 'baan' is
receptive in relation to the subordinative verb. No - I do not think it
is a participle any more than I now think it is an infinitive. I think
it is a subordinative _verb_.

I can't think of a natlang that works like that. But then TF has one or
two unusual features   :)

[snip]
>>
>>What it appears to me that we have here is:
>>(a) A subordinative verb form which inflects for the three core _noun_
>>case, i.e. the infinitive.*
I don't think that any more.

>>(b) It is used in clauses like:
>>   tara' kei  uenai ibuneis           ka'aman      ia.
>>   (she  ORG) want  (AUX_CVY:mushroom eat:INF_RCP) COMPL
>>..where the whole clause functions as a noun, i.e. we have a nominal
>>clause. In the familiar SOV langs, it is the object of 'want' - would
>>that be receptive in TF?
>
> Ah, I think this is where the misunderstanding is.
Yes. I would now say of (b):
... where the whole clause functions as a noun, i.e. we have a nominal
clause. In the familiar SOV langs, it is the object of 'want'. In TF,
however, the subordinative verb indicates how the clause is related to
the subject NP of the main clause (or something like that).

[helpful examples snipped]
>
>>(c) It is also used in clauses like:
>>   baan      ikaren   muras kuinin  sei
>>   old_woman CVY:shoe black own:RCP CVY
>>   The old woman who owns the black shoes.
>>..where the whole clause functions as an adjective, i.e. we have an
>>adjectival clause.
>
> Correct.
Good  :)

>
>>*I don't think conjugate/conjugation is the right word if we are
>>talking about core case forms.
>
> But would it make sense if the case forms indicated not the function of
> the infinitive, but the function of the *subject*?
I see what you mean. Yes, leave it as it is. Indeed, if I had taken more
notice of _conjugate_, I might not have misunderstood in the first
place. Mea culpa!

[snip]
> [...]
>
> OK. Then I'm still in the dark as to how I should describe this
> particular form of adjectival clause that uses the relative verb forms.
I think in fact you have described them well enough
http://conlang.eusebeia.dyndns.org/fara/relinf.html
It's just me skimming the thing instead of reading it more carefully.

But under 'Infinitive Clauses' the two examples in fact show _purpose_,
so may be 'Purposes Clauses' might be better (especially as TF seems to
have no infinitives   :)

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  :)

I think I must re-read the TF stuff properly.

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}

--
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}

Reply