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  March 2018, Week 5

CONLANG March 2018, Week 5

Subject:

Re: Subject / Object markers

From:

Aidan Aannestad <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Constructed Languages List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 29 Mar 2018 16:12:40 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (64 lines)

On 2018/03/29 4:58, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets wrote:
> On 28 March 2018 at 16:41, Aidan Aannestad <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> It's quite clear that they are at least *phonologically* bound markers and
>> not separate words - I wouldn't ever call them 'particles'.
>
> You're confusing things here: things can be phonologically bound yet be
> separate words. That's the point of calling them "clitics". That's the
> whole point here: there's no question that the Japanese particles are
> phonologically bound. The question is whether they are still to be
> considered separate words (clitics) or not (suffixes).
>
> The word "particle" itself says nothing about phonological boundedness, so
> it's perfectly fine to call a bound marker a particle.
Ah, we may have had a bit of a terminology mismatch, then. By 'separate 
words' I mean both syntactically and phonologically, with a clitic being 
separate syntactically but not phonologically and thus not a true 
'separate word' by that definition. I take the word 'particle' to denote 
only 'separate words' in this sense, which thus implies phonological 
unboundedness. I suspect that using 'particle' in a way that includes 
clitics might diminish the term's usefulness for specifying /unbound/ 
words that have only a grammatical function - a class of things which 
would no longer have a dedicated term.

(I could be wrong to take it this way, though! It's a connotation I seem 
to have picked up somewhere along the way, and couldn't back it up with 
a source.)

> On 28 March 2018 at 19:58, Chris Peters <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> I treat particles as separate clitics, as well.  Mostly for the fact that
>> particles don't change pronunciation like other Japanese linguistic
>> features do.
>>
>>
>> Example:  "roku" (six) + "kai" (floor of a building) becomes "rokkai"
>> (sixth floor).
>>
>>
>> Yet, if you were to add the particle "kara" (meaning "from" -- as if
>> "roku" were a place name), it becomes "Roku kara" ("from Roku"), rather
>> than contracted to "rokkara".
>>
>>
> I'm not sure that helps: classifiers are clearly a very different part of
> speech from particles. That one PoS behaves in a certain way says nothing
> about how another one should behave. Finally, I wouldn't necessarily expect
> placename Roku to behave phonologically the same as number roku.
Additionally, those markers do cause that kind of a change in some 
contexts in colloquial speech:

/yaru /'do'
/yakkara/ 'because [subj] does'

The triggering environment is different, though - only /ru/ changes 
AFAIK. You could argue that that only applies to sentence-final 
illocutionary force markers rather than to the noun case markers they're 
derived from, though; I'm unaware of the same change applying to 
case-marked nouns.


---
このメールは、AVG によってウイルス チェックされています。
http://www.avg.com

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