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'tmark
> > case?
> In order to explain various unusual properties about noun phrases andtheir
> distribution, generative grammar posits something called "AbstractCase",
> which gets assigned to noun phrases even in languages which don't
> distinguish cases morphologically. It's all too complicated to gointo, and
> anyway I don't know if I even believe in Abstract Case, so I'm notprepared
> 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.
> > 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 vocativesexcept
> > with the optional use of the 1sg possesive affix, literally "myBob."
> > Applied to 'Bob,' the vocative would be 'Boibeva', which soundsquite
> > silly!
> Another, perhaps commoner way to form vocatives in Tokana is byjuxtaposing
> the second person pronoun with a name/title. So another way toexpress 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'readdressing 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'sone
> > of the prettier conlangs around, IMHO.
> Thank you again! I'm flattered--especially since Tokana is notdesigned to
> be pretty (although it is designed to be aesthetically appealing tome).
Well, then, we must have similar tastes.
>---------End of Included Message----------