There are 11 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Oblique Passives
From: neo gu
1b. Re: Oblique Passives
From: Alex Fink
1c. Re: Oblique Passives
From: Roger Mills
2a. Re: Null-subject language
From: R A Brown
2b. Re: Null-subject language
From: R A Brown
2c. Re: Null-subject language
From: George Corley
2d. Re: Null-subject language
From: And Rosta
2e. Re: Null-subject language
From: And Rosta
2f. Re: Null-subject language
From: taliesin the storyteller
2g. Re: Null-subject language
From: R A Brown
2h. Re: Null-subject language
From: Leonardo Castro
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Oblique Passives
Posted by: "neo gu" [email protected]
Date: Sun Jul 7, 2013 8:27 pm ((PDT))
The latest version (Jul05) can make passive subjects from oblique objects.
First, a sample active sentence with an oblique phrase:
(1) kes^ z^ini tasumego roda gurakukc^i.
kes^ z^in-i tasume-0-go roda-0 gurak-uk-0-c^i
3ASNom this-Att cup-S-Abl beer-Abs drink-Prf-Fin-AT
"He has drunk beer from this cup."
This can be made passive:
(2) roda z^ini tasumego guraxrokc^i.
roda-0 z^in-i tasume-0-go gurax-r-ok-0-c^i
beer-Abs this-Att cup-S-Abl drink-Pas-Prf-Fin-AT
"Beer has been drunk from this cup."
Now, a sample intransitive sentence, also with an oblique phrase:
(3) kes^ ku 'erefantego dakto.
kes^ ku 'erefante-0-go dak-0-0-to
3ASNom Def elephant-S-Abl run-Aor-Fin-DT
"She ran from the elephant."
The ablative case-marker can be moved from the noun to become a verb prefix.
The verb is now transitive and the original oblique object is the direct object:
(4) kes^ ku 'erefante godakto.
kes^ ku 'erefante-0-0 go-dak-0-0-to
3ASNom Def elephant-S-Acc ???-run-Aor-Fin-DT
"She ran from the elephant."
Note: I don't know what interlinear tag to use for the prefix!
This can now be made passive:
(5) ku 'erefantes^ godaxroto.
ku 'erefante-0-s^ go-dax-r-0-o-to
Def elephant-S-Nom ???-run-Pas-Aor-Fin-DT
"The elephant was run from."
The case-marker can be made a prefix on transitive verbs as well, making the
oblique object a direct object. The original direct object must be omitted
(there doesn't seem to be a way to get it back, unlike the subject):
(6) kes^ z^ini tasume gogurakukc^i.
kes^ z^in-i tasume-0-0 go-gurak-uk-0-c^i
3ASNom this-Att cup-S-Abs ???-drink-Prf-Fin-AT
"He has drunk from this cup."
This can be made passive:
(7) z^ini tasume goguraxrokc^i.
z^in-i tasume-0-0 go-gurax-r-ok-0-c^i
this-Att cup-S-Abs ???-drink-Pas-Prf-Fin-AT
"This cup has been drunk from."
Oblique passives are most useful as participles modifying nouns:
(8) 'u godaxre 'erefantes^
'u go-dax-r-0-e 'erefante-0-s^
Def ???-run-Pas-Aor-Att elephant-S-Nom
"the run-from elephant"
(9) 'u goguraxroki tasume
'u go-gurax-r-ok-i tasume-0-0
Def ???-drink-Pas-Prf-Att cup-S-Abs
"the drunk-from cup"
Comments?
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Oblique Passives
Posted by: "Alex Fink" [email protected]
Date: Sun Jul 7, 2013 8:54 pm ((PDT))
On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 23:27:36 -0400, neo gu <[email protected]> wrote:
>The ablative case-marker can be moved from the noun to become a verb prefix.
>The verb is now transitive and the original oblique object is the direct
>object:
>
>(4) kes^ ku 'erefante godakto.
> kes^ ku 'erefante-0-0 go-dak-0-0-to
> 3ASNom Def elephant-S-Acc ???-run-Aor-Fin-DT
> "She ran from the elephant."
>
>Note: I don't know what interlinear tag to use for the prefix!
Sounds to me that this is an ordinary _applicative_, an ablative applicative to
be precise.
>Oblique passives are most useful as participles modifying nouns:
>
>(8) 'u godaxre 'erefantes^
> 'u go-dax-r-0-e 'erefante-0-s^
> Def ???-run-Pas-Aor-Att elephant-S-Nom
> "the run-from elephant"
I think I've seen a very similar suite of examples to this before in discussion
of some natlang which had applicatives and passives but syntactically could
only relativise on the subject. (Sorry I can't remember more details.)
Alex
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: Oblique Passives
Posted by: "Roger Mills" [email protected]
Date: Sun Jul 7, 2013 9:21 pm ((PDT))
From: Alex Fink <[email protected]>
On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 23:27:36 -0400, neo gu <[email protected]> wrote:
>The ablative case-marker can be moved from the noun to become a verb prefix.
>The verb is now transitive and the original oblique object is the direct
>object:
>
>(4) kes^ ku 'erefante godakto.
> kes^ ku 'erefante-0-0 go-dak-0-0-to
> 3ASNom Def elephant-S-Acc ???-run-Aor-Fin-DT
> "She ran from the elephant."
>
>Note: I don't know what interlinear tag to use for the prefix!
Sounds to me that this is an ordinary _applicative_, an ablative applicative to
be precise.
>Oblique passives are most useful as participles modifying nouns:
>
>(8) 'u godaxre 'erefantes^
> 'u go-dax-r-0-e 'erefante-0-s^
> Def ???-run-Pas-Aor-Att elephant-S-Nom
> "the run-from elephant"
I think I've seen a very similar suite of examples to this before in discussion
of some natlang which had applicatives and passives but syntactically could
only relativise on the subject. (Sorry I can't remember more details.)
===============================================
Possibly Indonesian/Malay?? you can have things like
Ali duduk di kursi
Ali sit loc chair
Ali sat in the chair
Ali (men)/duduk/i kursi
Ali (ACT)/sit/APP:Loc chair the active pfx is optional, colloquial, very
common.
Ali sat.in the chair, Ali occupied the chair
...kursi yang di/duduk/i (oleh Ali)
chair REL pass/sit/APP:Loc (by Ali),
the chair that was.sat.in (~occupied) (by Ali)
The suffix -i turns many an intrans. verb into a transitive with locative mng.
(among other things, like simple object focus :-)))))
I can't come up with the equivalent of "the run-from elephant" because 'run' is
_lari_ and verbs with final -i cant take the -i suffix for some reason. Plus
there's no App. for 'from'. But this is close:
Ia takut pada (elephant) She's aftaid of the elephant
Ia takuti (~menakuti) (elephant) 'she fears the elephant' even she's afraid of
the elephant
e. yang di/takuti/nya E. that is.feared./by her or the eleph. that she fears/
she's afraid of
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: Null-subject language
Posted by: "R A Brown" [email protected]
Date: Sun Jul 7, 2013 11:51 pm ((PDT))
On 07/07/2013 21:19, George Corley wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 2:34 PM, R A Brown wrote:
>
>> On 07/07/2013 18:03, George Corley wrote:
[snip]
>>>> Nope, it's just the verb. "I came" would probably
>>>> be
>>> 'ego veni' (correct me if I'm wrong, I don't speak
>>> Latin).
>>>
>>
>> I shall and do. "ego veni" is _not_ the Latin for "I
>> came." It is the Latin for "_I_ came", i.e. "I" is
>> topicalized for some reason - the usual one will be to
>> make "I" contrast with someone else.
>>
>> Just plain, unmarked "I came" or ("I have come") is
>> _veni_.
>>
>
> I was steering as close to "literal translation" as I
> could.
Yes, but as _vÄnÄ«_ means "I came" (or "I have come"), surely
a literal translation of _vÄnÄ«_ is "I came." It certainly
isn't plain "came."
One could, I guess, argue that a _literal_ translation is
"came-I", but that seems silly to me.
If _vÄnÄ«_ means in itself "I came", it surely follows that
_ego vÄnÄ«_ means something more than just "I came" - it
does. If one wanted to be literal I guess "_I_ came" would
suffice.
>> The first person meaning is still there, but it's
>> encoded
>>>
>>> as agreement morphology on the verb.
>>>
>>> veni come.PAST.1SG
The glossing is more complicated. Although Latin is
fusional, _vÄnÄ«_ is certainly bimorphemic _vÄn + Ä«_.
Glossing _vÄn-_ is more problematic. It is what is
traditionally known as the 'perfect stem' of the verb; the
other two stems being the 'present stem' _venī- (where the
final -Ä«- is shortened before certain endings), and the
'supine stem' _vent-_.
Also, of course, the final -Ä« of _vÄnÄ«_ is a 1st person
singular ending reserved solely for the perfect active tense
- the other 1st person endings being -m or -Å in active
forms. But the 1st person suffixes are always clearly there.
>>
>> Yes, but it's not _agreement_ morphology. It is the
>> subject. Some languages like to express the subject as
>> a separate 'word', some as a clitic, some as an affix -
>> that's all.
>>
>
> This is not that clear-cut though. Latin _does_ have
> freestanding personal pronouns, and the person-marking
> morphology is still there. Since this morphology is
> always obligatory, but the subject may or may not be
> expressed as a pronoun (yes, with pragmatic
> implications, but still with the same basic meaning). To
> me, that suggests that it is agreement morphology that
> can agree with an empty, but recoverable, subject.
There are different ways one can argue this. I always found
"agrees with the subject _understood_ in the verb", which we
were taught at school, a bit odd. I suppose I have the same
problem with "agreeing with an empty, but recoverable,
subject" similarly strange. Also, I guess, I'm influenced
by knowing the diachronic development - these personal
endings were, once upon a time, pronouns that got themselves
cliticized.
But I agree the statement "but it's not _agreement_
morphology" was somewhat dogmatic. There are different ways
of interpreting this phenomenon.
[snip]
>>
>> IMO the term "subject-dropping" is misleading. The
>> subject simply is not dropped - it's there for all to
>> see or hear.
>>
>
> The subject is recoverable because of redundant marking.
> That doesn't necessarily mean that the pronoun itself
> hasn't been dropped.
On this, however, I must strongly disagree. To talk of the
Latin personal endings as redundant marking seems to me a
anglocentric way of looking at things. From my point of
view it is the _ego_ that is redundant. Why should one have
to _recover_ something *that is already there* in _vÄnÄ«_?
When Caesar reported _vÄnÄ«, vÄ«dÄ«, vÄ«cÄ«_ there was no
ambiguity regarding the meaning. IMHO, _ego _vÄnÄ«, ego
vīdī, ego vīcī_ contains three redundant instances of _ego_.
>
>> Real subject-dropping does occur commonly, I
>> understand, in Chines (of all varieties) and certainly
>> in some style of English, e.g.
>> "Hi, been anywhere interesting lately?"
>> "Yeah - went over to that new fun-park yesterday.
>> Fantastic place!"
>> "That so? Must try and go this weekend."
>>
>> But Latin ain't like that.
>>
>
> Why?
Because neither "been", "went" or "must" have any subject
markers. Indeed "been" is not even a finite verb - it's a
perfect participle!
In Latin the verbs will have a _mandatory_ personal suffix
which _marks the subject_.
> Why must the morphology on the verb -- which is
> additionally fused with tense and aspect
Suffixed to a stem or to a TAM marker. The personal endings
are clear, though the choice of --Ä«, -Å, -m is triggered by
the stem and TAM marker (or lack of it).
> -- be the subject itself and not agreement with an
> external subject, either explicit or pragmatically
> recoverable?
If a subject is marked, whether by separate words, or by
cltics or by affixes, it is _marked_, period.
If a language habitually marks the subject by an affix
(prefixes in the case of Bantu languages, suffixes in many
others), it seems perverse to me to talk of "subject
dropping" just because an additional separate redundant word
is not expressed.
But the subject line is "null-subject language".
To say that Latin is a null-subject language is to my mind
quite barmy.
--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
"language ⦠began with half-musical unanalysed expressions
for individual beings and events."
[Otto Jespersen, Progress in Language, 1895]
Messages in this topic (16)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: Null-subject language
Posted by: "R A Brown" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jul 8, 2013 3:32 am ((PDT))
Since writing my previous email, I've done a spot of
research - _not_ using Wikipedia but using Larry Trask's "A
Dictionary of Grammatical Terms in Linguistics."
I took "null-subject" to mean what it says, i.e. a verb with
no subject, e.g. impersonal 'weather' verbs. But on
checking, according to the late Larry Trask _null-subject
language_ has a technical meaning: "A language in which
*pro-drop* occurs."
This sent me to look up _pro-drop_ which, I discover is "The
phenomenon in which an argument position of a verb,
particularly subject position, can be left empty ..."
But on the opposite page I find _pro_ with the definition:
"In G[overnment]-B[inding Theory], the *empty category*
posited as existing in the overtly vacant subject position
in certain languages exhibiting the phenomenon of
*pro-drop.* ..."
I then went to the long article on Government-Binding
Theory. I find that when the dictionary was published
(1993), GB was "[t]he most prominent and influential
contemporary theory of grammar ...."
Maybe it still is; I don't know. But I think that this is
probably the source of the difference between myself and
George.
As And knows from discussions I've had with him over the
years, I don't subscribe to any particular theory or school
of linguistics; I take a purely pragmatic approach based on
my own experience. My experience with Latin, a language
I've known and loved for more than sixty years, leads me
_from a purely pragmatic_ and sort of "gut feel" approach
to view the so-called pro-drop phenomenon of Latin (and
classical Greek) rather differently.
On 08/07/2013 07:51, R A Brown wrote:
> On 07/07/2013 21:19, George Corley wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> This is not that clear-cut though. Latin _does_ have
[snip]
>
[snip]
> But I agree the statement "but it's not _agreement_
> morphology" was somewhat dogmatic. There are different ways
> of interpreting this phenomenon.
Yep - there's the GB way, for example ;)
[snip]
> But the subject line is "null-subject language".
>
> To say that Latin is a null-subject language is to my mind
> quite barmy.
I still think the term is not a good one. Also saying the
literal translation of _vÄnÄ«_ as "came" is incorrect.
IMNSHO the Wikipedia article is poorly written and badly
needs improvement. Although we find about half-way down the
page "In the framework of government and binding theory of
syntax", the GB aspect should IMO be made clear from the
start. As things stand IMO the article is misleading and
inadequate.
Maybe someone who holds GB theory, or is sympathetic to it,
could rewrite it, and do a proper job of glossing examples;
it would save future misunderstandings.
--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
"language ⦠began with half-musical unanalysed expressions
for individual beings and events."
[Otto Jespersen, Progress in Language, 1895]
Messages in this topic (16)
________________________________________________________________________
2c. Re: Null-subject language
Posted by: "George Corley" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jul 8, 2013 3:48 am ((PDT))
Frankly, a lot of these theorhetical wranglings are of limited use to
conlangers, at least for those who want to create naturalistic conlangs.
Really, the best thing you can do there is use real natural languages as
models. Linguistic theories are by necessity simplified models, and often
are incomplete or confusing. It's more important to understand the data
they're trying to describe rather the theory people are building to
understand it.
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 5:32 AM, R A Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
> Since writing my previous email, I've done a spot of research - _not_
> using Wikipedia but using Larry Trask's "A Dictionary of Grammatical Terms
> in Linguistics."
>
> I took "null-subject" to mean what it says, i.e. a verb with no subject,
> e.g. impersonal 'weather' verbs. But on checking, according to the late
> Larry Trask _null-subject language_ has a technical meaning: "A language in
> which *pro-drop* occurs."
>
> This sent me to look up _pro-drop_ which, I discover is "The phenomenon in
> which an argument position of a verb, particularly subject position, can be
> left empty ..."
>
> But on the opposite page I find _pro_ with the definition: "In
> G[overnment]-B[inding Theory], the *empty category* posited as existing in
> the overtly vacant subject position in certain languages exhibiting the
> phenomenon of *pro-drop.* ..."
>
> I then went to the long article on Government-Binding Theory. I find that
> when the dictionary was published (1993), GB was "[t]he most prominent and
> influential contemporary theory of grammar ...."
>
> Maybe it still is; I don't know. But I think that this is probably the
> source of the difference between myself and George.
>
> As And knows from discussions I've had with him over the years, I don't
> subscribe to any particular theory or school of linguistics; I take a
> purely pragmatic approach based on my own experience. My experience with
> Latin, a language I've known and loved for more than sixty years, leads me
> _from a purely pragmatic_ and sort of "gut feel" approach to view the
> so-called pro-drop phenomenon of Latin (and classical Greek) rather
> differently.
>
>
> On 08/07/2013 07:51, R A Brown wrote:
>
>> On 07/07/2013 21:19, George Corley wrote:
>>
> [snip]
>
>
>>> This is not that clear-cut though. Latin _does_ have
>>>
>> [snip]
>
>>
>> [snip]
>
>
> But I agree the statement "but it's not _agreement_
>> morphology" was somewhat dogmatic. There are different ways
>> of interpreting this phenomenon.
>>
>
> Yep - there's the GB way, for example ;)
>
> [snip]
>
>
> But the subject line is "null-subject language".
>>
>> To say that Latin is a null-subject language is to my mind
>> quite barmy.
>>
>
> I still think the term is not a good one. Also saying the literal
> translation of _vÄnÄ«_ as "came" is incorrect.
>
> IMNSHO the Wikipedia article is poorly written and badly needs
> improvement. Although we find about half-way down the page "In the
> framework of government and binding theory of syntax", the GB aspect should
> IMO be made clear from the start. As things stand IMO the article is
> misleading and inadequate.
>
> Maybe someone who holds GB theory, or is sympathetic to it, could rewrite
> it, and do a proper job of glossing examples; it would save future
> misunderstandings.
>
>
> --
> Ray
> ==============================**====
> http://www.carolandray.plus.**com <http://www.carolandray.plus.com>
> ==============================**====
> "language ⦠began with half-musical unanalysed expressions
> for individual beings and events."
> [Otto Jespersen, Progress in Language, 1895]
>
Messages in this topic (16)
________________________________________________________________________
2d. Re: Null-subject language
Posted by: "And Rosta" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jul 8, 2013 4:26 am ((PDT))
There's a lot to be said for inventing the theoreticized abstract grammar
(phonology, syntax) first, and somewhat mechanically deriving from that the
surface behaviour, which is what speakers consciously experience, because
the surface behaviour is then not the direct product of design.
--And.
On Jul 8, 2013 11:48 AM, "George Corley" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Frankly, a lot of these theorhetical wranglings are of limited use to
> conlangers, at least for those who want to create naturalistic conlangs.
> Really, the best thing you can do there is use real natural languages as
> models. Linguistic theories are by necessity simplified models, and often
> are incomplete or confusing. It's more important to understand the data
> they're trying to describe rather the theory people are building to
> understand it.
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 5:32 AM, R A Brown <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > Since writing my previous email, I've done a spot of research - _not_
> > using Wikipedia but using Larry Trask's "A Dictionary of Grammatical
> Terms
> > in Linguistics."
> >
> > I took "null-subject" to mean what it says, i.e. a verb with no subject,
> > e.g. impersonal 'weather' verbs. But on checking, according to the late
> > Larry Trask _null-subject language_ has a technical meaning: "A language
> in
> > which *pro-drop* occurs."
> >
> > This sent me to look up _pro-drop_ which, I discover is "The phenomenon
> in
> > which an argument position of a verb, particularly subject position, can
> be
> > left empty ..."
> >
> > But on the opposite page I find _pro_ with the definition: "In
> > G[overnment]-B[inding Theory], the *empty category* posited as existing
> in
> > the overtly vacant subject position in certain languages exhibiting the
> > phenomenon of *pro-drop.* ..."
> >
> > I then went to the long article on Government-Binding Theory. I find
> that
> > when the dictionary was published (1993), GB was "[t]he most prominent
> and
> > influential contemporary theory of grammar ...."
> >
> > Maybe it still is; I don't know. But I think that this is probably the
> > source of the difference between myself and George.
> >
> > As And knows from discussions I've had with him over the years, I don't
> > subscribe to any particular theory or school of linguistics; I take a
> > purely pragmatic approach based on my own experience. My experience with
> > Latin, a language I've known and loved for more than sixty years, leads
> me
> > _from a purely pragmatic_ and sort of "gut feel" approach to view the
> > so-called pro-drop phenomenon of Latin (and classical Greek) rather
> > differently.
> >
> >
> > On 08/07/2013 07:51, R A Brown wrote:
> >
> >> On 07/07/2013 21:19, George Corley wrote:
> >>
> > [snip]
> >
> >
> >>> This is not that clear-cut though. Latin _does_ have
> >>>
> >> [snip]
> >
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >
> >
> > But I agree the statement "but it's not _agreement_
> >> morphology" was somewhat dogmatic. There are different ways
> >> of interpreting this phenomenon.
> >>
> >
> > Yep - there's the GB way, for example ;)
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >
> > But the subject line is "null-subject language".
> >>
> >> To say that Latin is a null-subject language is to my mind
> >> quite barmy.
> >>
> >
> > I still think the term is not a good one. Also saying the literal
> > translation of _vÄnÄ«_ as "came" is incorrect.
> >
> > IMNSHO the Wikipedia article is poorly written and badly needs
> > improvement. Although we find about half-way down the page "In the
> > framework of government and binding theory of syntax", the GB aspect
> should
> > IMO be made clear from the start. As things stand IMO the article is
> > misleading and inadequate.
> >
> > Maybe someone who holds GB theory, or is sympathetic to it, could rewrite
> > it, and do a proper job of glossing examples; it would save future
> > misunderstandings.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ray
> > ==============================**====
> > http://www.carolandray.plus.**com <http://www.carolandray.plus.com>
> > ==============================**====
> > "language ⦠began with half-musical unanalysed expressions
> > for individual beings and events."
> > [Otto Jespersen, Progress in Language, 1895]
> >
>
Messages in this topic (16)
________________________________________________________________________
2e. Re: Null-subject language
Posted by: "And Rosta" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jul 8, 2013 4:36 am ((PDT))
On Jul 8, 2013 7:51 AM, "R A Brown" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 07/07/2013 21:19, George Corley wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 2:34 PM, R A Brown wrote:
>>
>>> On 07/07/2013 18:03, George Corley wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>>>> Nope, it's just the verb. "I came" would probably
>>>>> be
>>>>
>>>> 'ego veni' (correct me if I'm wrong, I don't speak
>>>> Latin).
>>>>
>>>
>>> I shall and do. "ego veni" is _not_ the Latin for "I
>>> came." It is the Latin for "_I_ came", i.e. "I" is
>>> topicalized for some reason - the usual one will be to
>>> make "I" contrast with someone else.
>>>
>>> Just plain, unmarked "I came" or ("I have come") is
>>> _veni_.
>>>
>>
>> I was steering as close to "literal translation" as I
>> could.
>
>
> Yes, but as _vÄnÄ«_ means "I came" (or "I have come"), surely
> a literal translation of _vÄnÄ«_ is "I came." It certainly
> isn't plain "came."
>
> One could, I guess, argue that a _literal_ translation is
> "came-I", but that seems silly to me.
>
> If _vÄnÄ«_ means in itself "I came", it surely follows that
> _ego vÄnÄ«_ means something more than just "I came" - it
> does. If one wanted to be literal I guess "_I_ came" would
> suffice.
In an earlier message you said _ego_ would be topic (IIRC). "_I_ came"
focuses _I_. So better literal renderings might be:
As for me, I came.
Me, I came.
I came, me.
I came, I did.
I came, I did, me.
--And.
Messages in this topic (16)
________________________________________________________________________
2f. Re: Null-subject language
Posted by: "taliesin the storyteller" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jul 8, 2013 5:42 am ((PDT))
On 07/08/2013 12:48 PM, George Corley wrote:
> Linguistic theories are by necessity simplified models, and often
> are incomplete or confusing.
Even better, there's at least one new theory/framework every decade. GB
is old hat by now.
t.
Messages in this topic (16)
________________________________________________________________________
2g. Re: Null-subject language
Posted by: "R A Brown" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jul 8, 2013 6:12 am ((PDT))
On 08/07/2013 11:48, George Corley wrote:
> Frankly, a lot of these theorhetical wranglings are of
> limited use to conlangers, at least for those who want to
> create naturalistic conlangs. Really, the best thing you
> can do there is use real natural languages as models.
> Linguistic theories are by necessity simplified models,
> and often are incomplete or confusing. It's more
> important to understand the data they're trying to
> describe rather the theory people are building to
> understand it.
I think I basically go along with that. Certainly I agree
wholeheartedly that: "Really, the best thing you can do
there is use real natural languages as models."
=========================================================
On 08/07/2013 12:36, And Rosta wrote:
> On Jul 8, 2013 7:51 AM, "R A Brown" wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> If _vÄnÄ«_ means in itself "I came", it surely follows
>> that _ego vÄnÄ«_ means something more than just "I came"
>> - it does. If one wanted to be literal I guess "_I_
>> came" would suffice.
>
> In an earlier message you said _ego_ would be topic
> (IIRC). "_I_ came" focuses _I_.
True - thanks for pointing that out. It's this 'literal
translation' nonsense, which has bedeviled this thread, that
misled me.
Yes, in Latin topic gets fronted if the author thinks it
needs emphasis, and focus would normally be shifted to the
end. So, as you rightly observe, _ego vÄnÄ«_ is not really
"_I_ came"; that would be _vÄnÄ« ego_ (yes, subjects may well
be placed after the verb).
> So better literal renderings might be: As for me, I came.
> Me, I came.
> I came, me.
> I came, I did.
> I came, I did, me.
Yep - I think I prefer the first two. So we have:
_vÄnÄ«_ = I came
_vÄnÄ« ego_ = _I_ came/ 'Tis I who came.
_ego vÄnÄ«_ = Me, I came/ As for me, I came.
Let G-B do what it wants with those three ;)
========================================================
On 08/07/2013 13:42, taliesin the storyteller wrote:
> On 07/08/2013 12:48 PM, George Corley wrote:
>> Linguistic theories are by necessity simplified models,
>> and often are incomplete or confusing.
>
> Even better, there's at least one new theory/framework
> every decade.
:-D
> GB is old hat by now.
Not surprised ;)
--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
"language ⦠began with half-musical unanalysed expressions
for individual beings and events."
[Otto Jespersen, Progress in Language, 1895]
Messages in this topic (16)
________________________________________________________________________
2h. Re: Null-subject language
Posted by: "Leonardo Castro" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jul 8, 2013 6:46 am ((PDT))
Some pt-en tentative translations of mine that maybe are similar to
la-en translations:
Não sei. -> I don't know.
Eu não sei. -> I do not know.
Num sei. / N'sei. / Sei não. -> Don't know... (Informal with "I"
hidden. Doesn't it happen?)
Até mais!
Leonardo
2013/7/8 R A Brown <[email protected]>:
> On 08/07/2013 11:48, George Corley wrote:
>>
>> Frankly, a lot of these theorhetical wranglings are of
>> limited use to conlangers, at least for those who want to
>> create naturalistic conlangs. Really, the best thing you
>> can do there is use real natural languages as models.
>> Linguistic theories are by necessity simplified models,
>> and often are incomplete or confusing. It's more
>>
>> important to understand the data they're trying to
>> describe rather the theory people are building to
>> understand it.
>
>
> I think I basically go along with that. Certainly I agree
> wholeheartedly that: "Really, the best thing you can do
>
> there is use real natural languages as models."
> =========================================================
>
> On 08/07/2013 12:36, And Rosta wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 8, 2013 7:51 AM, "R A Brown" wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>>
>>> If _vÄnÄ«_ means in itself "I came", it surely follows
>>> that _ego vÄnÄ«_ means something more than just "I came"
>>> - it does. If one wanted to be literal I guess "_I_
>>> came" would suffice.
>>
>>
>> In an earlier message you said _ego_ would be topic
>> (IIRC). "_I_ came" focuses _I_.
>
>
> True - thanks for pointing that out. It's this 'literal
> translation' nonsense, which has bedeviled this thread, that
> misled me.
>
> Yes, in Latin topic gets fronted if the author thinks it
> needs emphasis, and focus would normally be shifted to the
> end. So, as you rightly observe, _ego vÄnÄ«_ is not really
> "_I_ came"; that would be _vÄnÄ« ego_ (yes, subjects may well
> be placed after the verb).
>
>
>> So better literal renderings might be: As for me, I came.
>> Me, I came.
>> I came, me.
>> I came, I did.
>> I came, I did, me.
>
>
> Yep - I think I prefer the first two. So we have:
> _vÄnÄ«_ = I came
> _vÄnÄ« ego_ = _I_ came/ 'Tis I who came.
> _ego vÄnÄ«_ = Me, I came/ As for me, I came.
>
> Let G-B do what it wants with those three ;)
> ========================================================
>
>
> On 08/07/2013 13:42, taliesin the storyteller wrote:
>>
>> On 07/08/2013 12:48 PM, George Corley wrote:
>>>
>>> Linguistic theories are by necessity simplified models,
>>> and often are incomplete or confusing.
>>
>>
>> Even better, there's at least one new theory/framework
>> every decade.
>
>
> :-D
>
>
>> GB is old hat by now.
>
>
> Not surprised ;)
>
> --
> Ray
> ==================================
> http://www.carolandray.plus.com
> ==================================
>
> "language ⦠began with half-musical unanalysed expressions
> for individual beings and events."
> [Otto Jespersen, Progress in Language, 1895]
Messages in this topic (16)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
