En réponse à Kristian Jensen <[log in to unmask]>:

>
> That was ME!!!! I've been on lurk mode for a very very long time.
> Old-timers
> here know that trigger systems is my cup of tea. But somehow I missed
> the recent
> discussions on trigger systems. <curses!>
>

Hey yeah! Well, as for missing the discussion about trigger languages, you can
still look at the archives for the discussion on this week and the past
week :) .

> > examples you give. Interestingly, this idea is very good to explain
> trigger
> > languages (though one can argue whether trigger languages are really
> verbless).
>
> The theory I had did not state that trigger languages were verbless.
> It stated that they indeed have verbs, but that whenever they are
> used they are always nominalized. E.g.; "eat" becomes "eater" for
> actor
> trigger; "eat" becomes "the eaten/the food" for patient trigger; "eat"
> becomes "eating place" for location trigger; etc.
>

Sorry if I wasn't accurate. I was quoting from memory, and you presented your
theory about trigger languages quite a while ago.

> > At least, it fitted the facts quite well (from what I know of Tagalog,
> the
> > subject in nominal sentences is marked like the trigger in verbal
> ones, thus
> > the idea that trigger sentences are essentially nominal fits quite
> well).
>
> I'm not a native Tagalog speaker, but I know enough of it (being part
> Filipino) to confirm that Tagalog sentences are essentially nominal.
>

I agree, though my knowledge of Tagalog is confined to reading the webpage
whose address I gave to Vasiliy.

> > Note that this idea wouldn't fit in my Itakian, though it's a trigger
> language.
> > In this language, sentences using the trigger have quite a different
> structure
> > from nominal sentences (the trigger and the subject are not marked the
> same,
> > and that's only the smallest difference).
>
> The fact that sentences using the trigger and ordinary nominal
> sentences
> essentially have the same structure in Tagalog is enough to convince
> me.
>
> I don't claim to be the authority on trigger systems, and I don't
> claim
> that the theory is 100% applicable to real-life West Austronesian
> langs.
> But I use it anyways because it is what I use as the keystone to build
> a
> unique grammar for my conlang -- Boreanesian. Whether it applies to
> real-life West Austronesian langs is besides the point. My concern is
> to
> make Boreanesian naturalistic yet unique, and I think I managed to do
> that
> by applying the theory to Boreanesian quite literally.
>

By the way, is Boreanesian on the web? I don't remember much about it.

I hope you're gonna lurk a little less: you're a very worthy member of the
conlang community (also, as soon as I come with morphemes and lexemes for
Itakian, I'm gonna present that to the list, and it would be nice to have the
opinion of someone who also created a trigger language :) ).

Happy to see that you're still around!

Christophe.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr