Miapimoquitch (was Re: Newbie says hi)

Hi Dirk,
Sorry for the delay; I keep reading this over and I'm still confused about
some things, so I'm responding to only some of it at this time (below).

On Mon, 11 Nov 2002 10:53:13 -0700, Dirk Elzinga <Dirk_Elzinga@...>
wrote:

>At 7:16 PM -0500 11/8/02, Jeff Jones wrote:
>>On Fri, 8 Nov 2002 10:14:18 -0700, Dirk Elzinga <Dirk_Elzinga@...>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> I'm wrestling with similar issues in Miapimoquitch, but the problem for
>>> me centers around the switch reference markers. Miapimoquitch shows no
>>> formal distinction between 'noun' and 'verb'; all lexical stems are
>>> inflected alike. This inflection includes transitivity, which must be
>>> explicitly marked for any predicate regardless of its lexical semantics,
>>> and a prefix indicating the object (subjects are marked by proclitics
>>> and are outside the inflectional system proper.)
>>>
>>> The switch reference system includes a set of proclitics which mark
>>> whether the subject of a subordinate clause is the same as or different
>>> from the subject of the matrix clause. Here are a couple of sentences:
>>>
>>>nkipe aqiiwika  [i'kiB1 a'Ni:wiGa]
>>>n-  kipe a=  qiiwi     -ka
>>>TR- poke DS= whistle:U -UN
>>>'He/she/it poked the (one who is) whistling.'
>>>
>>> The subject of the subordinate clause is different from the subject of
>>> the main clause, and this difference determines the selection of _a=_ as
>>> the determiner (glossed here "DS" = 'different subject').
>>>
>>>nkipe eqiiwika  [i'kiB1 1'Ni:wiGa]
>>>n-  kipe e=  qiiwi     -ka
>>>TR- poke SS= whistle:U -UN
>>>'The (one who is) whistling poked him/her/it.'
>>>
>>> Here the subject of the subordinate clause is the same as the subject of
>>> the main clause, so the determiner _e=_ is used (glossed here "SS" =
>>> 'same subject.')
>>> If you squint, the clitics _a=_ and _e=_ look like case markers since
>>> _a=_ appears on a subordinate clause which is coreferential with the
>>> object of the main clause and _e=_ appears on a subordinate clause which
>>> is coreferential with the subject of the main clause.  This means that
>>> there may in fact be a formal distinction between nouns and verbs; nouns
>>> have case marking (nee switch reference markers), verbs don't. I'm not
>>> entirely pleased with this development.
>>
>> I'm a little dull-witted today; I don't think I understand this
>> completely. The subordinate clauses in these examples are nominalized?
>
> No. At least, I didn't intend them to be nominalizations. They are
> subordinate clauses whose subjects are coindexed with an argument of the
> main clause. In the first one, the subordinate clause has as its subject
> an argument which is coreferential with the object argument of the main
> clause. This is marked by the proclitic _a=_, which is glossed 'DS' for
> "different subject" (i.e., different from the subject of the main clause).
>
> In the second sentence, the subordinate clause has as its subject an
> argument which is coreferential with the subject argument of the main
> clause. This is marked by the proclitic _e=_, which is glossed 'SS' for
> "same subject" (i.e., same subject as the subject of the main clause).
>
> Because of the coreference with the object or subject of the main clause,
> the subordinate clause markers _a=_ and _e=_ could also be interpreted as
> case markers, and the subordinate clauses they mark could be construed as
> nominalizations. Hence, there are parts of speech in Miapimoquitch (at
> least nouns and verbs). I don't like it, but I can't think of any
> construction types which would tease apart the difference between
> subordinate clauses and nominals.
>
>>They're equivalent to relative clauses when DS= and SS= are used as their
>>subjects?
>>Thus DS= and SS= mark case.
>>Are there other proclitic subjects that can occur, that is, what do
>>subordinate clauses of fact look like?
>
> There are no distinctions among subordinate clauses between things like
> relative clauses, noun clauses, and adverb clauses; the only distinction
> would be that some subordinate clauses have the same subject as the main
> clause, while others do not.
>
>>What about "He poked the bear" and "The bear poked him" ?
>
>nkipe a'ulese
>n-  kipe a=  ulese
>TR- poke DS= bear
>'he/she/it poked the bear (lit: "(the one who) is the bear").'
>
>nkipe e'ulese
>n-  kipe e=  ulese
>TR- poke SS= bear
>'The bear (lit: "(the one who) is the bear") poked him/her/it.'
Thanks for the extra examples.

>>Also, can you give examples with object prefixes?
>
>There are no object prefixes.
I must have misunderstood the original post where it says "a prefix
indicating the object".

>There are three proclitic person markers:
>
>wa= '1'
>ku= '2'
>le= '2>1' (i.e., second person acting on first person)
>
> When the transitivity marker _n-_ is present, the first and second person
> proclitics mark arguments which act upon a third person.
>
>wankipe a'ulese
>wa= n-  kipe a=  ulese
>1=  TR- poke DS= bear
>'I poked the bear.'
>
>lenkipe
>le=  n-  kipe
>2>1= TR- poke
>'You poked me.'
I see. Defining just one extra person marker (2>1), you avoid having to add
2 person markers (I wonder if I can steal it). I suppose you probably
mentioned it before ....

> There are two other prefixes which compete for the transitivity slot:
> _l-_, which inverts the hierarchical order of the arguments, and _qa"-_,
> which is reflexive/middle. The inverse marker forces the interpretation
> of the person proclitics _wa=_ and _ku=_ as objects with a third person
> subject:
>
>walpike a'ulese
>wa= l-   kipe a=  ulese
>1=  INV- poke DS= bear
>'The bear poked me.'
>
> For the person proclitic _le=_ the inverse marker forces a reading of
> first person acting on second person:
This too. Inversion markers are neat. I have one in my latest prospective
language and am still exploring the possibilities.

>lelpike
>le=  l-   pike
>2>1= INV- poke
>'I poked you.'
Is {pike} a typo, or is there some kind of syllable reversal process also?

BTW, are you still not getting copies of your posts?

Jeff

>> In MNCL, the final suffix determines if a wordform is syntactically a
>> verb, a coverb, an adjective, or a noun (in which case, it also marks
>> the case).
>> I think something like this is necessary, unless the same can somehow
>> be marked by position. But it's not the same thing as having a class of
>> words that can only take the noun endings.
>
> And my conception of Miapimoquitch is just the opposite; there are very
> probably distinctions between entities and events semantically, but in
> the syntax they all behave alike.
>
>Dirk
>--
>Dirk Elzinga                                     Dirk_Elzinga@byu.edu
>
> "It is important not to let one's aesthetics interfere with the
> appreciation of fact." - Stephen Anderson

Reply