There are 10 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: Point of View and Empathy
From: John Vertical
2a. Re: How to kick the infinitive habit
From: Henrik Theiling
2b. Re: How to kick the infinitive habit
From: Henrik Theiling
2c. Re: How to kick the infinitive habit
From: Benct Philip Jonsson
2d. Re: How to kick the infinitive habit
From: Mark J. Reed
2e. Re: How to kick the infinitive habit
From: Andreas Johansson
2f. Re: How to kick the infinitive habit
From: Gary Shannon
2g. Re: How to kick the infinitive habit
From: H. S. Teoh
2h. Re: How to kick the infinitive habit
From: Henrik Theiling
2i. Re: How to kick the infinitive habit
From: H. S. Teoh
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1. Re: Point of View and Empathy
Posted by: "John Vertical" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Oct 2, 2006 4:00 am (PDT)
Christopher Bates wrote:
(...)
>There are also various other factors (in fact, most things in linguistics)
>that could potentially involve point of view. An issue that occured to me
>in English is which referent, exactly, secondary predications of emotion
>are attached to. For instance:
>
>the king left the room disgusted
>
>seems to me to ordinarily require that either the king's or the room's
>point of view is adopted. If I try adding "bloody", which, as a
>perjorative, normally indicates a positive lack of empathy, then the first
>reading is blocked for me at least:
>
>??the bloody king left the room disgusted (the king was disgusted)
>
>the bloody king left the room disgusted (the room was disgusted)
Isn't this simply due to the two diffrent meanings of English "leave"? You
seem to be trying to use the "departure" sense in the 1st, and the
"causation" sense in the 2nd. Unless it's supposed to be the arcaic
structure used in eg. "a story untold".
Anyway, I think this works:
"The bloody king left the room, disgusted"
-With the comma in there, it's clearly 1st sense of "leave" & the king who
is disgusted... doesn't really come across as being due to the leaving, but
I'm not sure if that's even what you wanted.
Also: "The bloody king left the disgusted room".
Seems to be just an issue of juggling the modifier's location 'round. You
could in the first case just as well put it in the same spot as "bloody"
(but as you say, having both there does not really work).
>It seems to me that giving the emotional state in this way requires empathy
>more generally, and often the point of view of the entity exhibiting the
>emotion to be adopted. English does not present, in this situation, any
>easy, fairly minimal way of indicating the speaker's emotions when their
>point of view is adopted as narrator. For instance:
>
>the king left disgusted
>
>CANNOT be read as "the king left (I was disgusted)".
So... what you're looking for in this case is essentially a way of
expressing the discorse participants' opinions grammatically, even when
they're not directly related to the topic? Eg. "The moon is cheese (but I'm
skeptical about it)." "I saw a long snake (you would have been scared (of
it))." "Then you just add up the numbers (geez damn am I bored)." with the
parenthesized information expressed by nothing but the emotion/opinion
itself plus a morpheme to label it as assigned to 1p, 2p, object, subject,
etc? Possibly with a few modal categories for persons other than 1st, so in
2p for example you could have assumptiv "you probably think that..." vs.
interrogativ "so you think that...?" vs, I dunno, though-police-iv "you
would do best to think that..."
It could be fun to have 1p the unmarked person there and thus require extra
to talk about the opinions of anyone else than yourself. Might even proov
useful in egoistical personalangs maybe?
>There are languages which have morphology or particles specifically
>to specify the speaker's attitude towards an event.
(...)
>However, these seem to have the opposite problem: they are fixed as speaker
>orientated, rather than being relative to the point of view adopted.
Again a bit like the English "I think <gerund phrase> is X" construction
then? Or does it only work when the speaker is actually hirself involved in
the commented action?
>Finally, a Papuan language Oksapmin actually has verb morphology to mark
>point of view adopted during an event:
(...)
>This is apparently used to great effect in telling stories, but it is
>unclear what other categories are affected by a change in the viewpoint
>adopted.
Well, yes, it would be interesting to kno' what other things than telling
stories this is used in. Or maybe it is just a morpheme to mark
storytelling? :)
John Vertical
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: How to kick the infinitive habit
Posted by: "Henrik Theiling" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Oct 2, 2006 5:34 am (PDT)
Hi!
H. S. Teoh writes:
>...
> For example, while languages like English use verbs for "try", "start",
> "stop", etc., Tatari Faran has no equivalent verb for these concepts,
> but instead *adverbs*.
>...
Ach, sorry, should have read the whole thread before asking...
**Henrik
Messages in this topic (21)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: How to kick the infinitive habit
Posted by: "Henrik Theiling" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Oct 2, 2006 5:51 am (PDT)
Hi!
Gary Shannon writes:
> Does a conlang need the infinitive? I don't think so. ...
Which reminds me: Mr. Teoh, was it your Tatari Faran that uses adverbs
instead of auxiliaries? (Like German adv. 'gerne' ~ English verb 'to
like'?)
**Henrik
Messages in this topic (21)
________________________________________________________________________
2c. Re: How to kick the infinitive habit
Posted by: "Benct Philip Jonsson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Oct 2, 2006 7:25 am (PDT)
Henrik Theiling skrev:
> Hi!
>
> Gary Shannon writes:
>> Does a conlang need the infinitive? I don't think so. ...
>
> Which reminds me: Mr. Teoh, was it your Tatari Faran that
> uses adverbs instead of auxiliaries? (Like German adv.
> 'gerne' ~ English verb 'to like'?)
>
> **Henrik
Swedish can express it both ways: _Jag skriver gärna_ or
_jag tycker om att skriva_, with subtle stylistic
differences. The form with the adverb can mean "I don't mind
to write" in the right context, in which of course the
construction with _tycka_ (cf. Old English _)
AFMOC Kijeb has three infinite verb forms called "gerund",
"imperfective participle" and "perfective participle". They
all differ from finite verbal forms in not taking tense,
mode or inversion markers, and in taking case markers I
guess the gerund could be called "infinitive", but I don't
since the form is case-inflected and more 'nouny' than the
forms usually called "infinitive" in languages I'm familiar
with -- it is all a play with terminology anyway. The
"gerund" is much like a verbal noun, and also fulfils the
functions of verbal nouns in other languages. The main use
of the "participle" forms is in subordinate and relative
clauses, which can't contain finite verb forms in Kijeb or
its daughter languages. They express tense relations not
with the morphemes used to express tense in finite verbs,
but through the morphemes used as local case forms with
ordinary nominals, but can also be used as ordinary
participles in other languages, and then they take the case
markers in agreement with the noun they qualify. Finally
they can be nominalized themselves. Is this confusing to
native speakers? Probably not.
Ray Brown wrote, answering Andreas:
>>
>>> From your description, the "aparemphato" reminds me of
>>> the Swedish form called
>> "supine"*, which is only used to form compound tenses.
[snip origin of Greek form]
>> * Despite the name, it has no relation or apparent
>> similarity to the Latin verb-form of the same name.
>
> Except, of course, that in both languages the supine looks
> vaguely like the perfect participle, but different :)
Curiously it originated as a spelling regulation: in older
times strong neuter past participles, in all their
functions, could be spelled either with _-it_ or _-et_
arbitrarily -- or rather depending on the writer's dialectal
origin. Then it occurred to someone that the perfect and
pluperfect construction of transitive verbs(1) always used
what looked like a neuter singular participle regardless of
the gender and number of the participants, and decided that
the _-it_ spelling should be reserved for this function,
while the _-et_ spelling should be used in other functions.
It may be argued that the perfect-construction form is
different from the participle on the ground that it doesn't
take any agreement, but it was originally phonemically
identical to the neuter singular participle, and still is in
the sister languages(2) and most colloquial speech. Now of
course there are schoolteacher types who make the
distinction in speech, but it originated in writing, and had
its origin in someone's grammaticophilosophical ideas rather
than in anybody's speech.
(1) Intransitive verbs originally formed their perfect and
pluperfect with "to be" rather than "to have", and with
the participle inflected for number and gender, i.e. it
was a normal predicative complement involving a past
participle, but in the modern language the "have" +
supine construction has spread to intransitive verbs as
well for most people.
(2) Modern Icelandic actually has reserved the verb
_hafa_ to tense/aspect auxiliary use, using _eiga_
"to own" for possession where English or mainland
Germanic use "have".
--
/BP 8^)>
--
Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch at melroch dot se
"Maybe" is a strange word. When mum or dad says it
it means "yes", but when my big brothers say it it
means "no"!
(Philip Jonsson jr, age 7)
--
/BP 8^)>
--
Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch at melroch dot se
"Maybe" is a strange word. When mum or dad says it
it means "yes", but when my big brothers say it it
means "no"!
(Philip Jonsson jr, age 7)
Messages in this topic (21)
________________________________________________________________________
2d. Re: How to kick the infinitive habit
Posted by: "Mark J. Reed" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Oct 2, 2006 7:33 am (PDT)
I'd just like to say that this has turned into an interesting thread
despite the wrongheadedness of the initial post. Sorry, Gary, but I
have no idea where you got the impression that infinitives were some
sort of universal.
HST: I like the Tatari Faran approach. Adverbial modals - ingenious.
No doubt ANADEW, of course, but not that I've yet heard of.
Okaikiar verbs have boring old infinitives, perhaps notable in that
they are first-class nouns that decline fully and have no verbal
characteristics in that form. Perhaps gerunds would be a better
analogue, although they are also the dictionary form.
Messages in this topic (21)
________________________________________________________________________
2e. Re: How to kick the infinitive habit
Posted by: "Andreas Johansson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Oct 2, 2006 8:51 am (PDT)
Quoting "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I'd just like to say that this has turned into an interesting thread
> despite the wrongheadedness of the initial post. Sorry, Gary, but I
> have no idea where you got the impression that infinitives were some
> sort of universal.
>
> HST: I like the Tatari Faran approach. Adverbial modals - ingenious.
> No doubt ANADEW, of course, but not that I've yet heard of.
My Tairezazh, with relatives, also use adverbs rather than auxiliaries to
express moods, eg. _ta dhék_ "I go", _ta dhék zent_ "I want to go", where
_zent_ is an adverb.
Tairezazh also have two kinds of infinitive (I call them "infinitive" and
"gerund"), but they're more nounish than English infinitives.
Andreas
Messages in this topic (21)
________________________________________________________________________
2f. Re: How to kick the infinitive habit
Posted by: "Gary Shannon" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Oct 2, 2006 11:10 am (PDT)
--- "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd just like to say that this has turned into an interesting thread
> despite the wrongheadedness of the initial post. Sorry, Gary, but I
> have no idea where you got the impression that infinitives were some
> sort of universal.
Just my own ignorance of languages other than the three I'm familiar with:
English, Latin and German. :-)
Messages in this topic (21)
________________________________________________________________________
2g. Re: How to kick the infinitive habit
Posted by: "H. S. Teoh" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Oct 2, 2006 12:46 pm (PDT)
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 02:21:53PM +0200, Henrik Theiling wrote:
[...]
> Which reminds me: Mr. Teoh, was it your Tatari Faran that uses adverbs
> instead of auxiliaries? (Like German adv. 'gerne' ~ English verb 'to
> like'?)
Yes, as explained in the other post. It's not completely free of
auxilliaries, though. It does use a verb for "to like/want": uenai +
infinitive/gerundive. E.g.:
tara' kei uenai ibuneis ka'aman ia.
(she ORG) want (AUX_CVY:mushroom eat:INF_RCP) COMPL
She wants to eat the mushroom.
Again, with first-level parse tree indicated by parentheses. (The phrase
_ibuneis ka'aman_ is an infinitive.)
tara' kei uenai ika'am nihuu ibuneis so ia.
(she ORG) want (GND-eat AUX_RCP:1ps AUX_CVY:mushroom CVY) COMPL
She wants me to eat the mushroom.
Or, She likes my eating mushrooms.
Now, I'm not sure how close TF's infinitives are to "typical"
infinitives: they inflect for case and indicates the role of the subject
in the sub-clause.
T
--
The easy way is the wrong way, and the hard way is the stupid way. Pick one.
Messages in this topic (21)
________________________________________________________________________
2h. Re: How to kick the infinitive habit
Posted by: "Henrik Theiling" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Oct 2, 2006 8:05 pm (PDT)
Hi!
H. S. Teoh writes:
> On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 02:21:53PM +0200, Henrik Theiling wrote:
> [...]
> > Which reminds me: Mr. Teoh, was it your Tatari Faran that uses adverbs
> > instead of auxiliaries? (Like German adv. 'gerne' ~ English verb 'to
> > like'?)
>
> Yes, as explained in the other post.
Sorry, I posted before reading the whole thread.
> It's not completely free of auxilliaries, though. It does use a verb
> for "to like/want": uenai + infinitive/gerundive. E.g.:
>
> tara' kei uenai ibuneis ka'aman ia.
> (she ORG) want (AUX_CVY:mushroom eat:INF_RCP) COMPL
> She wants to eat the mushroom.
>
> Again, with first-level parse tree indicated by parentheses. (The phrase
> _ibuneis ka'aman_ is an infinitive.)
>
> tara' kei uenai ika'am nihuu ibuneis so ia.
> (she ORG) want (GND-eat AUX_RCP:1ps AUX_CVY:mushroom CVY) COMPL
> She wants me to eat the mushroom.
> Or, She likes my eating mushrooms.
>
> Now, I'm not sure how close TF's infinitives are to "typical"
> infinitives: they inflect for case and indicates the role of the subject
> in the sub-clause.
Sounds like a gerund (also the examples above seem to indicate a
gerund-like nature). And GND is for gerund I suppose, so what's the
difference to INF? Whereelse can either verb form be used?
**Henrik
Messages in this topic (21)
________________________________________________________________________
2i. Re: How to kick the infinitive habit
Posted by: "H. S. Teoh" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Oct 2, 2006 8:55 pm (PDT)
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 04:50:00AM +0200, Henrik Theiling wrote:
> Hi!
>
> H. S. Teoh writes:
> > On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 02:21:53PM +0200, Henrik Theiling wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Which reminds me: Mr. Teoh, was it your Tatari Faran that uses adverbs
> > > instead of auxiliaries? (Like German adv. 'gerne' ~ English verb 'to
> > > like'?)
> >
> > Yes, as explained in the other post.
>
> Sorry, I posted before reading the whole thread.
No problem.
> > It's not completely free of auxilliaries, though. It does use a verb
> > for "to like/want": uenai + infinitive/gerundive. E.g.:
> >
> > tara' kei uenai ibuneis ka'aman ia.
> > (she ORG) want (AUX_CVY:mushroom eat:INF_RCP) COMPL
> > She wants to eat the mushroom.
> >
> > Again, with first-level parse tree indicated by parentheses. (The phrase
> > _ibuneis ka'aman_ is an infinitive.)
> >
> > tara' kei uenai ika'am nihuu ibuneis so ia.
> > (she ORG) want (GND-eat AUX_RCP:1ps AUX_CVY:mushroom CVY) COMPL
> > She wants me to eat the mushroom.
> > Or, She likes my eating mushrooms.
> >
> > Now, I'm not sure how close TF's infinitives are to "typical"
> > infinitives: they inflect for case and indicates the role of the subject
> > in the sub-clause.
>
> Sounds like a gerund (also the examples above seem to indicate a
> gerund-like nature). And GND is for gerund I suppose, so what's the
> difference to INF? Whereelse can either verb form be used?
[...]
The infinitive is perhaps closer to a relative verb: the case
inflections are to indicate the subject NP's role in the sub-clause. In
fact, the infinitive forms are identical to the forms used in relative
clauses. The gerundive, OTOH, behaves like a NP, complete with the usual
trailing case particle (always neuter in this case).
The infinitive is used when the subject NP inside the sub-clause is the
same as the subject NP of the main clause. The gerundive is used when
the action is independent of the subject NP of the main clause.
More examples of the infinitive:
huu sa tapa tun na ibuneis arapan bata.
1sp CVY go slope RCP CVY:mushroom pick_up:RCP COMPL
I go to the slope (of a mountain) to pick mushrooms.
Notably, the infinitive clause is identical in form and construction to
a relative clause modifying a noun:
baan ikaren muras kuinin sei tanap buta' fei imi tsi.
(old_lady (CVY:shoe black own:RCP) CVY) dwell hut that in COMPL
The old lady who owns the black shoes lives in that hut.
The parenthesized phrases show the NP referring to the old lady, and
the embedded relative clause in it. The relative clause can be
transplanted and used as an infinitive clause:
kiran ka uenai ikaren muras kuinin ia.
young_man ORG want (CVY:shoe black own:RCP) COMPL
The young man wants to have (own) the black shoes.
The gerundive may be used in a similar context:
kiran ka uenai ikuini nibaan ikaren muras no ia.
young_man ORG want (GND:own RCP:old_lady CVY:shoe black RCP) COMPL
The young man wants the woman to have the black shoes.
Note that the gerundive uses a different subject NP in the sub-clause,
whereas the infinitive has the main clause's subject NP implied.
But the gerundive is also used for indirect discourse, where the
infinitive is *not* used:
diru kei tsana huu na ihapas asamat nijibin so aniin.
girl ORG speak 1sp RCP (GND:harm ORG:man RCP:child CVY) COMPL
The girl tells me about the man harming the child.
Or, the girl tells me that the man harms the child.
If an infinitive is used, it is interpreted not as indirect speech but
as a purpose clause:
diru kei tsana huu na nijibin ahapas aniin.
girl ORG speak 1sp RCP (RCP:child ORG:harm) COMPL
The girl speaks to me in order to (cause) harm (to) the child.
And of course, the traditional use of gerunds: to nominalize an action:
ihapas nijibin so sianas baibai.
GND:harm RCP:child CVY disreputable COMPL
Harming a child is disreputable.
Note also the reversal of word order between infinitives (arguments,
verb) and gerundives (gerundive, arguments, case particle).
T
--
People tell me that I'm paranoid, but they're just out to get me.
Messages in this topic (21)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/
<*> Your email settings:
Digest Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
