(also see: http://zbb.spinnwebe.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=37929)

Here's a thought...

I treat ambipositions like verbs, marking the definite post-verbally
and the indefinite pre-verbally. Then somehow relativize this
structure, allowing it to function as the pre/post-verbal argument of
a verb higher up the register.

Because definiteness is assigned during VP... before it becomes a
'relativized' PP of a higher register VP... it allows the PP's
relative position to the verb to mark static/dynamic spatial
distinctions rather than definiteness.

I like this.

Although is this actually relativization? I always saw this process a
noun modifier. Here I'm kinda forcing a VP to function nominally.

If you catch this, please share your thoughts.


On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 2:13 AM, A. Mendes <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Actually, I Think it makes more sense to use pre/post-positions to
> make the definiteness of the PP... and the PPs reletive positions to
> the verb to mark the static vs. dynamic spatial distinction.
>
> On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 12:40 AM, A. Mendes <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> WOW or I could use Pre/post-positions not for definiteness but for the
>> static vs. dynamic spatial distinction
>>
>> jump on.table
>> 'jump (up and down) on THE table
>>
>> jump table.on
>> 'jump onto THE table'
>>
>> on.table jump
>> 'jump (up and down) on a table'
>>
>> table.on jump
>> 'jump onto A table'
>>
>> but then I'm fucked when it comes to 'verbless' sentences (comment
>> topic statives). Maybe here it will have to mark definiteness
>>
>> on table
>> '(it is) on the table'
>>
>> table on
>> '(it is) on a table'
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 12:16 AM, A. Mendes <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>> If we analogise newness in discourse to newness as
>>>> an actual state of affairs, then if "on.table" is topical, it should be an
>>>> old state, i.e. he was on the table already, jumping up and down; if
>>>> "on.table" is in the comment, it's free to be a new state, i.e. have the
>>>> force of "onto".
>>>
>>> I'm so glad for your description of this cause this is the part of the
>>> equation I couldn't figure out how I'd deal with. This is definitly
>>> how I'm going to handle this beast.
>>>
>>>> Or, wait.  Aren't the above even backwards compared to what you said initially?
>>>
>>> Yup... Examples 1 and 2 are backwards... even when compared to 3 and
>>> 4. It was probably a mini-stroke.
>>>
>>>> the cluster of properties of prototypical natlang subjects include agentivity =
>>> perpetratorhood and topicality.
>>>
>>> Where I'm getting in trouble is that even though TOPIC and SUBJECT are
>>> two grammatically different creatures... often the subject is also the
>>> topic as well. My goal is total grammatical de-emphasis of the
>>> subject.
>>>
>>> Actually... I think I might come at it from this way... maybe verbs
>>> will only every have one argument (patient/victim by default and
>>> agent/perpetrator when the verb is reduplicated). That way... topics
>>> could function as either the subject/agent or object/patient, since
>>> it's the backdrop of the utterance:
>>>
>>> na   ti   me'u
>>> eat girl // shark
>>> 'the shark, the girl is eaten'
>>>
>>> na   na   ti   me'u
>>> eat.eat  girl // shark
>>> the shark, the girl eats
>>>
>>> It doesn't really change what I'm doing... just how I think about what
>>> I'm doing. But there'd still be instances where the Topic is also the
>>> patient or agent or verb:
>>>
>>> pi   ha
>>> see // man
>>> 'the man is sighted'
>>>
>>> ha   pi
>>> man // see
>>> 'a man is sighted'
>>>
>>> pi   pi   ha
>>> see.see man
>>> 'the man sees (something)'
>>>
>>> ha   pi   pi
>>> man see.see
>>> 'a man sees (something)'
>>>
>>> maybe I should view these as topic-less sentences.
>>>
>>>> If this is a question of avoiding ambiguity, might there be phonological
>>>> devices that you can use?  Prosody, perhaps, or your vowel alternations,
>>>> however they work.
>>>
>>> I'm not worried about ambiguity (though perhaps I should be). My issue
>>> it that I'm using the preverbal/postverbal distinction to signal
>>> indefiniteness/definiteness. If I treat adpositions like verbs—in that
>>> indefiniteness/definiteness is assigned by whether the noun leads or
>>> follows it—then the PP's position to the verb has to do something
>>> else... or produce a different meaning.
>>>
>>> on.table
>>> 'on the table'
>>>
>>> jump on.table
>>> 'jump the on the table'
>>>
>>> on.table jump
>>> 'jump an on the table'
>>>
>>> — — — —
>>>
>>> table.on
>>> 'on a table'
>>>
>>> jump table.on
>>> 'jump the on a table'
>>>
>>> table.on jump
>>> 'jump an on a table'
>>>
>>> Can you understand? There's potential for something to happen here...
>>> but atm I can't say what. I like this idea but have to develop it
>>> further
>>>
>>>> I have stretched ropes from steeple to steeple; garlands from window to
>>>> window; golden chains from star to star, and I dance.  --Arthur Rimbaud
>>>
>>> I memorized a Rimbaud poem in high school for a French competition...
>>> 'The Drunk Boat'. This quote is magical.
>>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 9:31 AM, Roger Mills <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>> --- On Thu, 4/21/11, A. Mendes <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>  So Korean and Japanese with case
>>>>> markings, and Hebrew and Russian with
>>>>> prepositions/(and/or case?). Mean!
>>>>
>>>> Malay/Indonesian have a couple strategies:
>>>>
>>>> Topic/comment, with a possessive suffix--
>>>> perempuan itu, rambut/nya hitam
>>>> woman that, hair/her black
>>>>
>>>> And I _think_ you can say
>>>> (ia) ada uang/nya
>>>> (he) there.is money/his = he has money (with him at the moment, not= he's rich AFAIK)
>>>>
>>>> whether you can say
>>>> perempuan itu ada rambutnya hitam -- I'm not sure
>>>>
>>>> In a few cases (intrinsic parts of wholes?) you can use the ber- prefix, which implies 'having'--
>>>>
>>>> meja itu berkaki tiga
>>>> table that ber-leg 3 == that table has three legs
>>>>
>>>> or, meja itu, tiga kakinya // or meja itu, kakinya tiga
>>>>  .....   three its/legs           ....   its/legs three
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's something I've not sorted yet:
>>>>>
>>>>> panín.po'i   mara
>>>>> black.hair  // woman
>>>>> 'the woman has black hair'
>>>>>
>>>>> panín.po'i
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Daniel Bowman <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> > That makes sense; Korean and Japanese have similar
>>>>> grammar.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 7:36 PM, Garth Wallace <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 5:08 PM, A. Mendes <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> >> wrote:
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > Q2. Do any natlangs conflate existence with
>>>>> possession?
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Japanese does. The intransitive verb "aru" means
>>>>> "to exist
>>>>> >> (inanimate)". To show possession, you make the
>>>>> owner the topic and the
>>>>> >> possessed item the subject. So "Tanaka has an
>>>>> apple" would be
>>>>> >> "Tanaka-san wa ringo ga arimasu", which could also
>>>>> be translated "As
>>>>> >> for Tanaka, an apple exists".
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>