Pseudopassive constructions, sentences, husky Norwegians
|From:||Matt McLauchlin <matt_mcl@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, September 27, 2000, 5:23|
> >Ian teuc.
> >ia-n | teuc-Ø
> >I abs | love 3pSgPrSim
> >"I am loved."
>What does "Sim" mean?
Simple/progressive, as opposed to perfect, future, or indefinite/imperfect.
>I don't see where your problem is, actually. The verb does appear to agree
>with the subject in all your sentences. You don't say "someone", but the
>verb still agrees with it. The only difference between the last two
>sentences is word order. The meaning between the two is not that extreme
>-- it is not unheard of for indefinite subjects to evolve into passives.
>Since verbs mark person, could explicit ergative pronouns be dropped (like
>subject pronouns à la Romance)? In other words, is:
>Teuca Áudridan. I love Audrid.
>a valid sentence?
No, just like *Aime Audrid = "(I) love Audrid" isn't a valid sentence of
>Áudridan teuca . for: Audrid is loved by me? (or is it "Audrid, I >love."
>[not husky Sven]?)
Both would be Áudridan iar teuca (or "teuca iar") [iks Sbenan troiard] :)
>also be interpreted as, "He loves me."?
>or do we need an explicit 'he-erg'?
You would need an explicit he-erg. If there's no ergative in the sentence,
no definite ergative can be interpreted.
>I like the Ian teuc./Teuc ian. split, since they both basically mean the
>same thing, but there's a shift in focus. Does it work across the board >of
>personal pronoun endings?
Not just personal pronoun endings:
Ger rodz oin iam. She-erg sells something-abs me-dat = She sells me
Iam rodz oin ger. Me-dat sells something-abs she-erg = I buy something from
Blessed be, Écartons ces romans
Matt McLauchlin qu'on appèle systèmes,
GM18, Montreal, Canada Et pour nous éléver
English/français/esperanto descendons dans nous-mêmes.
icq: 4420218 -Voltaire
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at