Print

Print


--- In [log in to unmask], "Harald S." <polysynthetic@I...> 
wrote:
>
> A bright and shining hello to the list! :)))
> 
> Being a regular reader but rare poster who conlangs to research 
language as 
> such to discover its mechanisms and paradigms, I herby delurk and 
want to 
> share one thought about semantics that I have seen mentioned 
nowhere else so 
> far. I hope it won't be too philosophical and I would be eager to 
know 
> whether you have chosen one of the following two approaches in a 
conlang - 
> or even found yet another way to express what I am about to 
discuss...
> 
> In the sentence "I shouted 'Hello everybody!'", the text 'Hello 
everybody!' 
> is not the shout itself but rather the wording of my shout (being 
the 
> acoustic consequence of me shouting) which was set free by me as 
the agent. 
> Rick Morneau would have called 'Hello everybody!' the focus of the 
event 
> since it is an elaboration of the event itself and, being a core 
argument, 
> is neither agent nor patient.

> For speakers of German and English though, 
> 'Hello everybody!' has the "look and feel" of the patient case role 

Indeed, an effected patient (factitive), rather than a theme or an 
affected patient.

> quite 
> convincingly because passive voice can be constructed as "'Hello 
everybody!' 
> was shouted by me" and somehow it appears that "I" is the agent 
and 'Hello 
> everybody!' is the patient of our example sentence.
> 
> But what about the outcome (acoustic in this case) of my event of 
shouting? 
> If English had a case for it  - let's call it "resultive" -, would 
(using a 
> hypothetical resultive case suffix of "ox") a sentence such as "I 
shouted 
> 'Hello everybody!' thunderox" mean "I shouted using the 
words 'Hello 
> everybody!' and my shout was thunder"?

My first guess, in this case, is that "thunder" is the effected 
patient (factitive), and 'Hello everybody!' is a nominalized sentence 
in the /genitive/; since it is a nounish thing which tells more about 
its head noun, the "thunder".

My second guess would be that perhaps 'Hello everybody!' is still the 
factitive, and "thunder" is now equative -- tells what class the 
factitive was in.

Got to go -- more later maybe.

> If yes, then which kind of case role 
> would 'Hello everybody!' be? Certainly not the patient, would it? I 
rather 
> see notions of instrumentality but still I am not very sure...
> 
> Analyzing another example, let us consider "She paints something 
red on the 
> blackboard". "something red" does not appear to me like a mere 
elaboration 
> of the event. It rather looks like an object being acted on and, 
thus, seems 
> to be the patient of the sentence. In my opinion, English and 
German have 
> quite a strange view on the process being illustrated here. One 
could 
> understand it as an imaginary object (described as "something red") 
being 
> moved by painting from an unspecified location within potentiality 
to an 
> explicit destination in reality, namely the blackboard. But for 
such a kind 
> of meaning, no "resultive" case role would be implied at all!
> 
> Thus my questions: Which approach have you taken in your own 
conlang? Is 
> there another way to put it? Please let me know...
> 
> Cheers and thank you very much,
> Harald
> :))))))
>