> > On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 1:06 AM, David Peterson <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> In that case, they're not agreement markers, as they would have to agree
> with
> the human first and second person arguments.
>

Ah, okay. Is "incorporation" a legitimate term for the device, then, or is
there a better way I could describe what's going on?

 I don't know much about this language, but it doesn't sound like the same
> thing. It sounds like there aren't a set of fixed elements which can be
> incorporated
> thus, but just any old word that seems to fit (something which helps to
> better
> classifier the verbal action).


Quite possibly--I'll have to find some more materials on Oneida.


> What you have sounds almost exactly like how
> the noun class pronouns work in Zhyler. Unfortunately I don't have anything
> up on my site about this specifically, but you can probably glean the
> relevant
> information from here:
>
> http://dedalvs.com/zhyler/nclasses.html
>
> http://dedalvs.com/zhyler/verbs.html
>
> Essentially, you can have something like the following:
>
> wervener matum
> /wolf[Class.III, ACC.] see[1sg.Sbj.]/
> "I see a wolf."
>
> matfenym
> /see[Class.III.Obj., 1sg.Sbj.]/
> "I see it."
>
> Where the class marker is "incorporated" (I wouldn't call it incorporation,
> though) into the verb and serves a pronominal function. The set of class
> markers is closed--and, of course, you can't use them as standalone nouns.
>

Ah! That is just about exactly what I'm looking at doing.


>
> It seems like what you've done is you took the Oneida information and
> determined that your class markers can be standalone nouns. They can do
> that if you want, but I don't think that's what's happening in Oneida.
>

Mm--I might be misunderstanding you, here. The class markers placed on the
verb in Feayran cannot be standalone nouns; I thought that in Oneida they
could be, and I was wondering if in deviating from the pattern in that way,
I had ventured out of the realm of "noun incorporation."


> It would seem odd simply because of the way locations participate in a
> verb's
> argument structure, in general (aside from verbs like "put" and "place",
> they're
> generally peripheral). Do you have some examples?
>

Sure! (In the gloss, STANCE is a placeholder for more specific tags that
aren't pertinent to the present discussion)

Haushuhuikeotash
H<au-sh-u-huik<eo>ta>sh
search<1S-PRES-CAUS.IND-surprise<LOC.INAN>>
"I search in unexpected places."

Ulkurhriithunueveost
Ulk<u-rhr-ii-th-u-nuev<eo>s>t
hunt<STANCE-PREDATOR2-PL-PRES.ESSENTIAL-CAUS.IND-night<LOC.INAN>>
"Those dangerous predators hunt at night."

Verrushtuuvatobeir
Verr<u-sht-uu-v-a-tob<ei>r>
territory<STANCE-UNFAMILIAR-PL-PRES.STAT-ACT.IND-plain<LOC>>
"The strangers are living on the plain."

Most noun class languages have an "elsewhere" class that non-obvious nouns
> fall into. I figure when designing a noun class system, it's not dividing
> up the
> entire world into separate bits, but dividing the world into a part that's
> divisible,
> and an "everything else" part. Seems like you're all set.
>

Yep--splitting my "misc" category into "familiar" and "unfamiliar" has
proved useful (as in the above sample).


>
> Dirk, of course, is still quite active on the list, but he generally only
> respond to threads that pique his interest. If you'd mentioned "Navajo"
> or "Oneida" in the subject of your original message, I bet he would've
> replied already.
>

Ah! Perhaps I'll see if I can flag him down.

Thanks again for your help!

Best,
David