Re: Attributive Nominal Forms and Syntax in a lang experiment

--- JR <fuscian@...> wrote:
> on 11/19/03 11:39 AM, Elliott Lash at
> erelion12@YAHOO.COM wrote:
*snip*

> > Take this case:
> > nga lo kwa tshiji be      hao
> > I   not see person start  talk
> >
> > I don't see the person who is starting to talk.
> > I didn't see the person who was starting to talk.
> >
> > etc.
> >
> > tshiji person-pre:attrb.
> > tshije person
>
> Okay. On a different note, how do you tell what the
> head noun's role in the
> relative clause is? How do you know that "bunlu zoy"
> doesn't mean "soup that
> heats (something)"?

Interesting question...I'm not sure if I really need
to. I think plenty of languages leave this unmarked.

Welsh for example:

Dyma'r dyn ffoniodd Fred
"this is the man who Fred phoned"
or
"this is the man who phoned Fred"

since alot is left up to the context already (i.e.,
tenses), then this seems like one option.

If less ambiguity is needed, I guess a resumptive
pronoun can be used:

myezai 'bear'
myeze 'bear-attr'
kun 'eat'
ta 'him,he'

shi ni            myeze     ta kun (ta)
exist this-attr   bear-attr he eat (he)

only means:
'this is the bear that he ate'

shi ni myeze kun ta

means both:
'this is the bear that he ate'
'this is the bear that ate him'

Similarly:

mu       kwo nga bunlu ta zoy
pleasure to  me  soup  it heats

'I like a soup that heats (me) up'


> >>> Some other weird type of Phrase:
> >>> ne 'this'    pre-attr: ni
> >>>
> >>> (shi) ni          gi shyuke
> >>> exist this-attr   my  house
> >>>
> >>> 'This is my house'
> >>
> >> Is "this my house" all one phrase, and then
> you're
> >> saying that that exists?
> >> That seems quite different from the English
> >> translation.
> >
> > No, I'm saying
> >
> > (shi) [ni]  [gi shyuke]
> >
> > I think of this as a sort of 'essive'
> construction.
> >
> > (exist) [this-as] [my house]
> >
> > "This exists as my house."
>
> So ... the pre-attributive form is used here even
> though the demonstrative
> is NOT part of a larger phrase, just because of the
> essive construction? (I
> thought originally that "this my house" must be a
> phrase because this would
> motivate the pre-attr. form, and I didn't see what
> else would.) That would
> be extending the usage of the form to a construction
> which is similar
> semantically but not structurally. Very interesting.
> I'm not sure if this
> appears in any other langs.
Could you perhaps tell me how having the 'this' as
part of the larger phrase would motivate the
pre-attributive form? If I can understand your
argument better, I'd like to see if I can change the
language to make it clearer...

Elliott

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/

Reply