Re: Attributive Nominal Forms and Syntax in a lang experiment

on 11/20/03 4:45 PM, Elliott Lash at erelion12@YAHOO.COM wrote:

> --- 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'
How come the first sentence has only one interpretation and the second has
two? Since the language seems to be SVO, I'd expect the first to mean "this
is the bear he ate" only, and the second "this is the bear that ate him"
only (like in English).

> 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...
Well, in the other examples, the pre-attr. form is used when the noun is
part of a larger noun/determiner phrase - whether the other part of the
phrase is an adjective, relative clause, or possessive. This being part of a
larger phrase, rather than just on its own, causes the noun to have the
pre-attr. form. So I thought if "this" had the pre-attr. form used, it would
be for the same reason - that it was part of a larger N/D phrase. Of course
you don't have to change the language based on this. Who says everything has
to be clear and consistent?

--
Josh Roth

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

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

Replies