There are 4 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: Naisek Grammar Change Q
From: Logan Kearsley
1b. Re: Naisek Grammar Change Q
From: Wm Annis
2. Name That Glyph | Round Four « Pseudoglyphs
From: A. Mendes
3a. Re: How Does Everyone Translate?
From: J. Snow
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: Naisek Grammar Change Q
Posted by: "Logan Kearsley" [email protected]
Date: Tue Dec 27, 2011 11:45 pm ((PST))
On 27 December 2011 21:37, neo gu <[email protected]> wrote:[...]
>>>I'm not sure how an applicative would solve the problem. I thought
>>>applicatives moved oblique arguments to the direct object, replacing>>>the
>>>original direct object. Is there another kind of applicative? I>
>>>already>>>have a prepositional construction with the passive, only it's
>>>awkward>>>stylistically. As in "From the wind was blown the paper." or "From
>>>the>>>knife was cut the bread.">>> [Hmm. I have an instrumental case; I
>>>wonder why I'm not using it> there....]>> [...and it looks like I should be
>>>using it instead of a "from" phrase.]
That's essentially the Blackfoot solution. It doesn't have an
instrumental noun case, but it does have a "some noun in this sentence
is instrumental" verb marking. From _Blackfoot Grammar_:
"In general, the subject of a transitive verb in Blackfoot is
presupposed to be capable of exercising will. Unless the speaker
wishes to convey that presupposition, he or she must use an alternate
strategy...."Instead of translating such sentences literally,
Blackfoot makes use of the unspecified subject form of the verb (the
same as the 21 subject form); the (unwillfull) involvement of the
logical subject is expressed by use of the linking prefix _iiht_
'means'...."
So, sentences like "the knife cut the bread" in Blackfoot are
ambiguous between "the bread was cut with the knife" and "we (excl.)
cut the bread with the knife."
>> Okay, using the applicative per se doesn't solve the problem. What>> solves
>> the problem is introducing a completely generic agent:>> "*someone* cut the
>> bread with the knife". Are there any>> *inanimate-subject sentences which
>> you think would suffer horribly>> having a generic agent introduced like
>> this?>> "Someone blew the paper with the wind."> Ota halfata hi papir hipe
>> humepe.>> There's no way this could not refer to a person, however unknown.
>> In> fact, it would emphasize the personal factor. I'd have to invent a new>
>> pronoun just for that purpose.
Inventing a new pronoun just for that purpose would indeed be a less
than elegant solution. But could you find some additional usage for
such a pronoun? Or could you use pro-drop in this situation? (So,
something like "cut-ERG. bread-ABS. knife-INSTR.", ergative subject
missing.) Or could you go the Blackfoot route and just declare that in
these particular idiomatic constructions, the personal pronoun may
lose its personal force?
On 27 December 2011 22:34, neo gu <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
>> I rather like David's suggestion of adding an inverse, though I'd like
>> it better if it came with an explanation of origin. Maybe, rather than
>> a verbal affix, it could be some sort of periphrastic construction
>> with an auxilliary verb, similar to a passive but not reducing
>> valency.
>
> Actually, the Naisek passive isn't periphrastic; it uses a prefix along
> with changing the personal ending for the passive. E.g. halfator
> (active) => dohalfato (passive).
Sorry, that was horribly ambiguously phrased on my part; probably
because it was muddled up in my mind as I conflated the English
construction of passive with the generic semantics of passive.
The point is, you could do something like a periphrastic passive
(which would really end up being a periphrastic inverse since it
wouldn't reduce valency), in addition to your actual passive, and thus
avoid adding any inverse morphology to the verb.
>> Or an indefinite agent with the inanimate participant attached by
>> any of a range of prepositions that indicate subtle differences in its
>> actual role.
>>
>> Or maybe idiomatic conjunctive/adjunctive constructions, like "the
>> window broke and the ball fell through it" or "the window broke
>> because the ball fell" instead of "The ball broke the window".
>
> These are already possible, but they sound awkward as replacements.
Sure they sound awkward in English, but do they sound awkward to a
native Naisek speaker who is accustomed to the fact that that's just
how you say it and has done so for all his life? After all, we have
some pretty odd constructions in English- just think of all the
defective modals and their periphrastic infinitives, or the complexity
of compound aspects ("used to have been..."), or the hoops we have to
jump through to relativize arguments in multiply embedded clauses.
-l.
Messages in this topic (13)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Naisek Grammar Change Q
Posted by: "Wm Annis" [email protected]
Date: Wed Dec 28, 2011 5:41 am ((PST))
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 10:37 PM, neo gu <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Someone blew the paper with the wind."
> Ota halfata hi papir hipe humepe.
>
> There's no way this could not refer to a person, however unknown. In
> fact, it would emphasize the personal factor. I'd have to invent a new
> pronoun just for that purpose.
Then use the passive for that. There's no reason you have to use
an identical strategy for all translations of English active sentences
with semantically inanimate agents. It makes sense that natural
forces and the weather seem of higher animacy than, say, a knife,
since they operate without human intervention. Slot them into a
different construction, and give a prayer of thanks to Saint Tolkien
and Saint Hildegard that you didn't decide on something like
Navajo's eight-level animacy hierarchy. :)
--
William S. Annis
www.aoidoi.org www.scholiastae.org
Messages in this topic (13)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2. Name That Glyph | Round Four « Pseudoglyphs
Posted by: "A. Mendes" [email protected]
Date: Wed Dec 28, 2011 12:37 am ((PST))
http://pseudoglyphs.wordpress.com/2011/12/28/name-that-glyph-round-four/
Happy holidays all. Round for is up a day late. Thanks to everyone for
their contributions.
Cheers
Messages in this topic (1)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Re: How Does Everyone Translate?
Posted by: "J. Snow" [email protected]
Date: Wed Dec 28, 2011 2:16 am ((PST))
>It's hardly commitment when I work so little on it :) It's my first conlang,
>and it's just there. It's not like it's going to go away or be "finished" or
>anything.
If a man builds a boat two peices a year for 26 years, I'd call -that-
commitment. :)
>Ah, then that's twice the vocabulary productivity I've had overall :)
To be honest, that's just a rough estimate. When I make new words, I generally
write them down on any one sheet of paper, therefore I have no uniform
'dictionary'
and no way of counting the number of words. (I've kept nearly every peice of
paper
I've worked my conlang out on, save the atrocious Proto-Sironu I started with.)
>I only make words when I need them for something. Ok, in 2007 I did more than
>that, opened a few new areas like names of smells and filled out the animals...
>but usually only to build a translation.
That's what I generally do, though there are times (like yesterday) I go all
out and
create loads of new words.
Out of curiosity, what does -tylakèhlpë'fö- mean?
Messages in this topic (13)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
[email protected]
[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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
