Re: A C-a grammar question

--- Ray Brown <ray.brown@...> wrote:

> On Thursday, June 9, 2005, at 05:10 , Joseph
> Bridwell wrote:
>
> >> «Echa, esti junu fapu grandu pera undrari junu
> >> cadoligu ils cunxueduñis djils huidelis.» dichid
> al
> >> chimpeda.
> >> Do you think the addition of "to" marking the
> clause
> >> boundary makes thing clearer, more confused or
> just
> >> silly?
> >
> > For me: neither, nor, nor
>
> Same here - in the case of the second 'nor', I don't
> see what is silly
> about the juxtaposition of the two NPs in the first
> place; there are many
> natlangs that are quite happy with that.
>
> > - though it does emphasis the idea
> > that /undrari/ doesn't directly affect /ils
> cunxueduñis/.
>
> Yep - obviously Adam has to decide whether the
> object of _undrari_ is
> direct or indirect. But I assumed he had already
> decided _undrari_ would
> take a direct object just 'to honor' does in English
> or indeed _honorare_
> does in Latin.
Yes.

I understood Adam to mean that if two
> NPs, one being the
> subject & the other the direct object, shall I use
> "to" to mark the object.
>   My answer is "no".
>
Thanks.  Yes, this is what I was getting at in my own
muddled way.  After reading several responses and
thinking about the various things pointed out, I
agree.  "To" as a marker of the DO of an infinitive is
out.

> This appears to be a VSO language and word-order
> combined with common
> sense should this clear.
Quite so.

But what I think does need
> consideration is
> whether the subject & object of an _infinitive_
> should be treated the same
> way as the subject & object of a finite verb.
>
This is the kind of thing I'm still way too likely to
gloss over until some sentence like this one gives me
pause.  Something about it just doesn't feel "right"
yet.  And I think you hit the nail squarely one the
head.  I don't think the S and DO of infinitives in
C-a should be treated the same as those of a finite
verb.  But I've decided that my original idea is NOT
what I'm looking for.

> In English we must of course use the gerund, and not
> the infinitive, after
> a preposition, and the subject of the gerund is
> possessive, thus: for a
> catholic's honoring the customs.....
>
> Welsh, which is a VSO language, often marks the
> _subject_ of the verbnoun
> (approx. = infinitive) with _i_ (to) and puts this
> between the preposition
> and the verbnoun, thus:
>    er_mwyn        i     gatholig anrhydeddu'r
> arferion ....
> for-the-sake-of to [a] catholic to-honor   the
> customs ....
> {note: 'er mwyn' is a complex preposition]
>
Interesting.

> Classical Latin would also have 'a catholic' as
> dative (to a catholic),
> but as the verb is transitive the _gerundive_ (and
> not a gerund or
> infinvitive) would be used. The gerundive is a
> passive verbal adjective
> and 'customs' would the object of the preposition
> (ad) corresponding to
> Carrajena 'pera' and Welsh 'er mwyn', thus:
> ad  consuetudines   .... catholico      honorandas
> for customs-ACC.PL  .... catholic-DAT.S
> honor-GERUNDIVE.ACC.PL
>
Interestinger and interestinger -- to paraphrase
Alice.

> So maybe it is the subject of the infinitive that
> ought to be marked
> rather than the object  :)
>
> Ray
«Echa, esti junu fapu grandu pera undrari _AD_ junu
cadoligu ils cunxueduñis djils huidelis.» dichid
al chimpeda.

"Already, it's a deed great for to.honor to a catholic
the customs of.the faithful," said the beggar.

I like.  Pondering . . .

Adam

Jin nifalud fistus todus idavi eseud adimpuudu ul isu fi aved niminchunadu pera ul
Dju peu'l medju djul provedu cumvi dichid: «Iñi! Cunchepijid ed nadajid il
virdjini ad junu huiju, ed cuamajuns ad si il Emanueli fi sñivigad ul Dju simu
noviscu.»

Machu 1:22-23

Reply