Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Vocatives (was Re: Newbie here)

From:Jesse Bangs <jaspax@...>
Date:Sunday, February 4, 2001, 20:37
> > So how would a small clause be defined for languages which don't
> > case? > > In order to explain various unusual properties about noun phrases and
> distribution, generative grammar posits something called "Abstract
> which gets assigned to noun phrases even in languages which don't > distinguish cases morphologically. It's all too complicated to go
into, and
> anyway I don't know if I even believe in Abstract Case, so I'm not
> to defend it. Anyhow, the definition of small clause is entirely > independent of whether a language has morphological case or not.
More or less what I expected. I'd be interested in seeing evidence for this from a language w/o case, just to analyze the syntax.
> (snip) > > The next one, however, does not happen in Yivríndil: > > > > > N'afa, ia Bob? > > > Qu-accompany Quot Bob > > > "Are you coming along, Bob?" > > > > Nope, can't use 'ef' for vocatives. Yiv doesn't mark vocatives
> > with the optional use of the 1sg possesive affix, literally "my
> > Applied to 'Bob,' the vocative would be 'Boibeva', which sounds
> > silly! > > Another, perhaps commoner way to form vocatives in Tokana is by
> the second person pronoun with a name/title. So another way to
express the
> above sentence would be: > > Ku Bob n'afa? > You Bob Qu-accompany > "Are you coming, Bob?" > > The "ia" construction is necessary only if the person you're
addressing does
> not him/herself play a role in the sentence: > > N'afan Sakial, ia Bob? > Qu-accompany-the Sakial Quot Bob > "Is Sakial coming along, Bob?"
Is some sort of vocative marking mandatory? In my experience, languages that do not have morphologically marked vocatives do not make vocative marking mandatory, but I am not a linguistic typologist and am not claiming a linguistic universal. Does anyone know of a natlang that has mandatory vocative marking that isn't morphological?
> > BTW, I really appreciate the aesthetic flavor of Tokana, Matt. It's
> > of the prettier conlangs around, IMHO. > > Thank you again! I'm flattered--especially since Tokana is not
designed to
> be pretty (although it is designed to be aesthetically appealing to
me). Well, then, we must have similar tastes.
> > Matt. >
---------End of Included Message---------- Jesse Bangs