Re: Attributive Nominal Forms and Syntax in a lang experiment

on 11/19/03 11:39 AM, Elliott Lash at erelion12@YAHOO.COM wrote:

> --- JR <fuscian@...> wrote:
>> on 11/18/03 9:46 PM, Elliott Lash at
>> erelion12@YAHOO.COM wrote:
>
>>> Relative Clauses:
>>> bunlo 'soup'     pre-attr:  bunlu
>>>
>>> nga zoy bunlo
>>> I   heat soup
>>> 'I head the soup'
>>>
>>> mu        kwo          nga  bunlu zoy
>>> pleasure  come-toward   me  soup hot
>>> 'I like hot soup'
>>
>> Is there a relative clause in the conlang version
>> here? The translation
>> doesn't have one. Of course 'bunlu' would be used
>> anyway because of the
>> adjective 'zoy' - or is 'zoy' itself the relative
>> clause?
>
>
> The translation doesn't have one, since it would be
> odd in English to say "I like the soup which
> is/was/has been/will be heated'
>
> But what about in this case:
>
> mu kwo nga bunlu lai zoy.
> "I like the soup which you heat up"
>
> (the tense could also be: you've heated up, you are
> heating up' etc)
>
> But, a bare verb without a pronoun could also be
> translated as a relative clause, it's just that the
> verb "zoy" sounds weird as a relative clause in many
> cases, so it just is translated as the adjective "hot"
>
> Take this case:
> nga lo kwa tshiji be      hao
> I   not see person start  start
>
> 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)"?

>>> 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.

--
Josh Roth

http://www34.brinkster.com/fuscian/index.html

"Farewell, farewell to my beloved language,
Once English, now a vile orangutanguage."
-Ogden Nash

Reply