Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: inverse constructions

From:Daniel Andreasson <noldo@...>
Date:Friday, November 5, 1999, 22:44
Paul Bennett skrev:

> Daniel Andreasson>>>>>> > One more example: >=20 > thel yulo e-gedh-ando (iii) > dog:ABS see:PRES OBV-bird-ABL > 'A dog sees a bird' >=20 > thel yulo-vo e-gedh-ando (iv) > dog:ABS see:PRES-INV OBV-bird-ABL > 'A bird sees a dog' > <<<<<< >=20 > This is probably because I still don't understand "topic"=20 > (now, where's that darned FAQ gotten to?), but why not=20 > simply allow: >=20 > e-gedh yulo thel-ando > 'A bird sees a dog'
I know I shouldn't have brought PROX/OBV up. That was just to show that if you're talking about your *father* taking a *dog* for a walk, then you can be pretty sure what is the topic of the sentence. Then you put father in the PROX. But if it happens to be a really huge dog who actually takes your dad for a walk, then you'd have to use the=20 inverse to show that it still is dad who is the topic of our conversation, but currently a big dog is acting on him instead of the other way around.=20 (i) dad.AGENT walks dog.PATIENT 'dad walks the dog' (ii) dad.AGENT walks-INVERSE dog.PATIENT 'the dog walks dad' Ex. (ii) implies that the roles are reversed. Anyway. The thing I want to do is to mark that on the verb. Or put the verb at the front of the sentence to show that the roles are the other way around. I think it's cool to be able to show a sociological thing grammatically. That is, that a 1st person is more important and therefore more likely to act upon a second person than the other way around. And if the other way around actually happens, then that should be marked in some way. Otherwise, your suggestion would be just great. / Daniel Andreasson ps. sorry if I sound rude, that's not the intent.