Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Nakiltipkaspimak goes active!

From:daniel andreasson <daniel.andreasson@...>
Date:Thursday, November 16, 2000, 16:05
Marcus wrote:

> Hmm. Well, you're absolutely right. I did mean "theory" in a different > sense. I meant it in the form of "one principle that can account for all > kinds of data, including stuff that isn't directly related to the topic
> was developed for". They give one principle of case, without reference
> the different patterns (ie, accusative, ergative, active), and derive all > the patterns from that one principle. They're idea, in layman's terms,
> that each noun must be within the sphere of influence of ("governed by")
> "case assigning" element (ie adposition or verb). The differences in the > types come out when two elements are in the same area
I'm sure that works fine. It's just that I'm a bit skeptical about the whole tree idea. Whenever something doesn't fit, just add another tag to the CP. Oh well. I don't want to go into a discussion about generative grammar that I know so little about.
> You could treat indirect objects like subjects. Some people have
> that indirect objects are in fact some kind of secondary subject.
> to these people, "X gives Y Z" can be semantically decomposed into "X
> Y has Z". So "John gave Mary a gift" is "John caused Mary to have a
> There is interesting support for the idea. Compare the following
> > *Who did the brother of give Mary a gift? (Pretty incomprehensible) > *Who did John give the sister of a gift? (Huh? What is that supposed to > mean?) > Who did John give Mary a picture of? (Perfectly okay.) > > So the indirect object patterns more with the subject than the direct > object.
That's a nice idea! I'm thinking about making causativization really productive too, so perhaps I can do something in that area.
> On the other hand, this goes against the idea that in head marking > languages, the indirect object takes over the role as the agreeing
> (Unless you're a generativist, in which case that is expected because > agreement disregards grammatical roles almost entirely in favor of > structure).
Oh no!!! I'll have to abandon the idea now. Thanks a lot for mentioning this Marcus... Just kidding. ;-)
> I'm not sure how to implement this for Pimak, but I thought I might make
> suggestion.
Yeah. Yet another thing to do. Hmmm... If I put my advisor in a space ship that makes almost the speed of light and send her away for a couple of days, that would buy me some time. Now where can I find a space ship like that...? :-P daniel -- <> KATTAWIKNIK PIMAKTASAL <> <> <> KATSAYUKNIK PIMAK <> Daniel Andreasson <>