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".
>>> >>
>>> >
>>>
>>
>