LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CONLANG Archives


CONLANG Archives

CONLANG Archives


CONLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CONLANG Home

CONLANG Home

CONLANG  April 2000, Week 4

CONLANG April 2000, Week 4

Subject:

Re: Question on Géarthnuns grammar (sorta long)

From:

DOUGLAS KOLLER <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Constructed Languages List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 28 Apr 2000 23:08:08 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (58 lines)

From: "Matt Pearson"

> I'm not sure what your motivation is for giving these examples,
> since you provide no commentary.  They're not really relevant to
> the example I gave, since they're not double-object constructions.
> A double-object construction is one in which both the direct
> and indirect object are unmarked for case, or are marked with
> the same case.  In your Géarthnuns examples, the indirect object
> is marked with dative case and the direct object with accusative
> case.  The direct object is clearly not a chomeur in this type of
> construction.

A misunderstanding on my part.

> Now, what would *really* prove my case would be if
> Géarthnuns had an alternate ditransitive construction
> like this:
>
>    John-NOM  AUX  Bill-ACC  höi  book-ACC  give
>
> --in which there is no way to make "book-ACC" the subject of
> a passive sentence.  But I don't suppose there is any such
> construction...

You'd be correct here.

> >> The direct objects of nouns and gerunds are clearly chomeurs
> >> as well, since it's not possible to passivise nouns and gerunds.
> >
> >The eating of the ice cream was seen by me?
> >The ice cream's being eaten was seen by me?
>
> Can you form passive nominalisations in Géarthnuns?  If
> not, then these examples are irrelevant:  Direct objects of
> nominalised verbs weould be chomeurs in Géarthnuns but not
> in English.  (My guess is that you cannot form passivised
> nominalisations in Géarthnuns, since the passivisation
> operation is linked to the AUX system, and nominalisations
> don't include an auxiliary.  Am I right?)

At the risk of misunderstanding you again, I think so? Gerunds are formed by
taking the verb, reversing the auxiliary, and adding a suffix.

la glozh (eat)  =>  glozh + al + örs  =>  glozhalörs   eating

so:

lat glozh  (be eaten)  =>  glozh + tal + örs  =>  glozhtalörs  being eaten

Chau glozhtalörs cha fusumbansas lét sín tel.
the being.eaten-nom the ice.cream-gen past/pass I-instr see
The ice cream's being eaten was seen by me.

In theory, any aux+verb combo could be gerundized, though some forms are
obviously more commonly used than others.

Kou

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Error during command authentication.

Error - unable to initiate communication with LISTSERV (errno=111). The server is probably not started.

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager