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  June 2004, Week 3

CONLANG June 2004, Week 3

Subject:

Re: Ergativity and verb forms

From:

Arthaey Angosii <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Constructed Languages List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sat, 19 Jun 2004 11:03:51 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (64 lines)

Emaelivpeith Racsko Tamas
> However in my example, the phrase "previously mentioned one" meant a
> different thing.

It's your second type of "previously mentioned" that I meant.

> In languages which uses affixes on verbs that agree
> with verbal complements (e.g. they incorporate the person of the direct
> object into the verb), you do not have to specify the complements
> itself, if it is obvious from the context. E.g. Hungarian "Ismerem
> Janost. Kedvelem." 'I know John. I know [him].' The equivalent of
> '[him]' is omitted in Hungarian, because verb form "kedvelem"
> incorporates a reference to a known 3rd person direct object. I do not
> know if this kind of "previously mentioned one" had a technical term.
> In Hungarian it is considered rather as a special conjugation called
> "definite" (i.e. it refers to a definite direct object), the same is
> called in Basque usually as conjugation "nor-nork" 'whom-who' (and "nor-
> nori" 'who-to whom' or "nor-nori-nork" 'whom-to whom-who').

In Asha'ille, you can (and normally do) drop previously mentioned
information, sometimes using pronouns and sometimes using nothing at
all. For example:

Arevnilordhi ne emeirjho.
arev -ni  -l-  -ordhi  ne   emeirjho
give self OBJ: someone OBJ: flower
I give someone a flower.

Any verbs that follow, which do not specify via conjugational endings or
explicit subjects/objects, will be understood to carry the last information so
given:

Direv n'o.
direv ne   no
take  OBJ: it
I take it from someone.

Or even more simply:

Direv.

The verbs don't have to be in adjacent sentences. There just can't be
any verbs with specified information on them, else the last verb will
take *its* information instead. For example:

"Arevnilordhi ne emeirjho. Jhor'no t'fin. Sshak muahaha! Direv. Daedh arev."

means

"I gave someone a flower. It was[1] white. I said[2], 'Muahaha!" I
took the flower from (that same) someone. I gave it to them again."

[1] The construction "jhor'A t'B" means "A is B" or A=B, but has no
actual verb in it expressing the equivalence relationship. Is there a
term for this? I just looked up "copula," which turns out to have to
be a verb, so that can't be it.

[2] "Sshak" introduces a direct quote. It's no more a verb than
English's "quote end-quote" phrase.


--
AA

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