Re: Trigger languages

Carsten Becker wrote:
> Matahaniya ang R A Brown <ray@...>:
>
>> If (a) is intended, read David's comments from "The
>> notion of the 'trigger' language, then, is something
>> exclusive to conlangs" onwards; also take a look at
>> Carsten's Ayeri conlang.
>> http://www.beckerscarsten.de/conlang/ayeri/
>
> The thing that goes on in Ayeri has grown out of the same
> misunderstanding as in the article in the Wikibook.
Yes, I know - but it is nevertheless surely a worked example of a
"trigger conlang." I wrote that I agree with David's comments; therefore
I agree that"
[quote}
The notion of the "trigger" language, then, is something exclusive to
conlangs.
For example, one could create a language like the following:
Verb: maka "eat"
Subject Trigger: makana
Object Trigger: makasi
Indirect Object Trigger: makalo
Genitive Trigger: makava
Adessive Trigger: makawe
Allative Trigger: makatu
Abessive Trigger: makaje
Ablative Trigger: makazo
Inessive Trigger: makapi
Illative Trigger: makaha
Etc.
{/quote}

The trigger in such languages is, of course, the semantic role of the
subject and the different verb forms are triggered by that role.

David also wrote: "I don't mean to suggest that the trigger conlang is a
bad thing (as I said, I have one myself), only that it isn't necessarily
a representation of something that's naturally occurring." I agree. A
"trigger conlang" is not a bad thing, nor is Ayeri flawed in any way
because it may have developed out of a misunderstanding. I feel certain
that features in some auxlangs, for example, arose from misunderstanding
of natlang features (but I must tread carefully here   ;)

> I forgot my handle
> there, so please delete that anyone who has access, because it's kind of
> inaccurate AIUI now. Instead I think it's better to refer to the
> Wikipedia article on "Austronesian alignment", that is,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austronesian_alignment.
I agree, it's better. But I have reservations with that article. I would
have preferred more actual examples; nor am I convinced that the
analysis given is complete. Paz Buenaventura Naylor's paper "Nominal
Syntax in Verbal Predications" offers a rather different analysis of the
Austronesian verb (unfortunately I can't find a copy of this on the
Internet).

[snip]
> Also, as far as Describing Morphosyntax goes,
> "trigger morphology" is classified as an applicative *voice* -- not as a
> special syntactic alignment as such! -- which, I think, suits the whole
> thing better.
So do I. Indeed, I think the term "trigger morphology" is unhelpful.
Morphological forms are triggered all the time in very many languages,
particularly where there is any system of 'agreement'. In languages with
case systems, often different adpositions trigger the use of one case or
another etc, etc.

> I'm sorry for having provided misleading information
> before, but actually it has been explained that way on Conlang-L before
> (!).
...and it has been explained in other ways on threads in Conlang-L as
well; see for example:
http://archives.conlang.info/pae/qhanghu/jabuazhuen.html
    :)

--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
Frustra fit per plura quod potest
fieri per pauciora.
[William of Ockham]

Reply