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 1999, Week 4

CONLANG March 1999, Week 4

Subject:

Re: relative tense / universals / object agreement

From:

Boudewijn Rempt <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Constructed Languages List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 22 Mar 1999 15:11:16 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (50 lines)

Nik Taylor wrote:

>> I think the universal is, direction first (most often past vs.
present/future),
>> and distance second.
>
>It's only logical, I think.  I mean, what could possibly be gained by
>indicating distance without direction?  I think this is one of those
>"universals" that are just practical, the alternate just wouldn't work.

Well, since theoretically, as a thought experiment, it could be possible.
I mean, if the direction of the future is not universal
(the future can be viewed as either in front of you or behind you),
it could be possible that neither direction is viewed as important,
only the distance. As you say, it's quite logical that this construction isn't
attested, but it remains an interesting thought - quite suited for a conlang
:-).

Of course, a nice parallel are deictics: you've got distal ('there') and
proximal
('here') deictics, that don't indicate any direction, so it is conceivable to
construct a tense system out of verbs + proximal and distal deictics.

>> Does anyone know of a conlang that has object agreement
>> incorporated into the verb?

>Klingon does.  My conlang, Watya'i'sa, has *optional* agreement with the
>ergative argument, and obligatory agreement with the absolutive
>argument.

I'm always a bit confused on terminology for ergativity - do you mean the
following:

(Terminological aside: S = intransitive subject, A = transitive subject (als
called agent), O = object, in an ergative language S and O are marked the same,
A is marked differently, fairly often with a case related to the instrumental.)

In Watya'i'sa, the agreement of the intransitive verb with S of the transitive
verb with O is morphologically the same and obligatory, while the agreement of
the transitive verb with A is optional?

That would be very interesting - it's most often that marking for S and O is
optional, while the marking A is obligatory, since in intransitive sentences
marking for the subject is redundant - in fact, third person singular
subject/object is most often the default, unmarked actant.
I'd very much like to see some examples...

My own language was started long before I even heard of the existence of
ergativity, and I can't work it in anymore - more's the pity.

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