Re: Italian Particles

Tim Smith wrote:

> Here, I think, is the crux of the matter.  You talk about "emphasis", etc
>
> Are you making this kind of distinction in Teonaht?  And if so, which is
> which?  (Initial topic and final focus, or vice versa?  Or neither?)
>
> Another problem is that, in general, the verb is probably the _least_
> likely constituent to be either topicalized etc. etc. etc.

Okay.  One last thing.  Teonaht, to quote Tolkien, has not
had enough "experience in the world" to put these issues to the test.
It is a language of intuition and poetry.  It is as unnatural as the
"abnormal sentence" in fourteenth-century Welsh romance.  I haven't
had the time or the inclination, yet, to wrangle out the thorny problems
of topic and focus and emphasis, which strike me--all these things
you mention and which I have snipped out of weariness--as being
developments
from actual use in the world.  Until it can be put to that test, and its
elements tried to see if they work or not, I can't answer your
questions.
Teonaht was slow and cranky to develop, and I don't believe I'll iron
out
all its problems in any swift way.  It's heading in the direction, I
think, of SOV, but until then, the OSV structure is the baroque syntax
of writing.  If the Welsh could yank their VSO patterns into a weird,
contorted form of SVO (all the rage for a while in the Mabinogion), a
structure which could hardly be differentiated from the stressed
sentence,
then I think I'm entitled to allow T. its eccentricities that may
collide, for the time being, with what seems like good sense to you,
Tim.
It will probably have just as elaborate a means to express topic/focus.
But it's unnatural not merely because I prefer it that way, but also
because its an invented language, that has gained a history that I'm
loath to put aside at the drop of the hat.  Does that make sense?  It
works for me in my system.  The T., after all, have cousins who cannot
eat from the same spoon twice.  They lay out, in their extravagant
way, a long series of expensive spoons so that a utensil may only go in
the mouth once before it's discarded.  All of T. is a little like that.
It
revels in long words and round-about ways of saying things.

Okay, enough about this.  I'll look at those references.  But I think
T. is different from the Carib language you mention in one important
respect:  it's OSV is a highly literate and literary development...
i.e., highly artificial.  As is T., after all!  It's SOV is more
vernacular.

For the record: emphasis is fronted.  Whether that causes problems
for our expectations of subject and object, the T. don't seem
concerned.  I don't know why!  I'll get this sorted out when I
post, if ever I do, the SYNTAX section of the grammar.  Thanks
for your comments. <G>

Sally

============================================================
SALLY CAVES
scaves@frontiernet.net
http://www.frontiernet.net/~scaves (bragpage)
http://www.frontiernet.net/~scaves/teonaht.html (T. homepage)
http://www.frontiernet.net/~scaves/contents.html (all else)
=====================================================================
Niffodyr tweluenrem lis teuim an.
"The gods have retractible claws."
                                from _The Gospel of Bastet_
============================================================