Print

Print


On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 20:00:36 -0400, Alex Fink <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 20:10:16 -0400, Anthony Miles <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>The diachronic origin of the Possessive Agent:
>>Atam-0 “Adam”
>>Adam-NOM
>>Mele-0 atam-me-0
>>name-NOM Adam-POS-NOM
>>mele atam-me-0
>>name Adam-POS-NOM
>>atam-me
>>Adam-POS
>>
>>An example sentence:
>>atam-me      pitake-0        payikopume.
>>Adam-POS  animal-ABS “he sees it”
>>
>>You're right, however, that the current Siye speakers would process it as a
>>quirky use of the Possessive (the Dative-Accusative is already overburdened,
>>and if I follow Sumerian models the Instrumental cannot be used with
>>animates). I was stuck in an Indo-European mode of justification.
>
>Alright, that clears that up for me.  Thanks.
>
>I still don't get what motivated the process to happen in the first place,
>though!  What possible sort of defect does "Adam sees it" have that "Adam's
>name sees it" remedies?

I noticed that the sentence
atam pitake yikome (the verb construction at the time)
could mean
"Adam sees the animal" (atam is nominative)
(Adam is a possible name for baptized Siye speakers). Since Siye speakers
tend to use names like Tupi "Bird" and Uku "Fish/Nothing", this seemed to be
a problem. Possibly it is not. I originally incorporated a topic marker in
Siye, but then deleted it when I learned that the sort of SOV language I
want Siye to be does not use topic markers, but word order instead. So
atam pitake yikome
means
"Adam sees the animal"
and 
pitake atam yikome
means
"Animal sees the humanoid"

What I could do is change the direct object in the Absolutive case. If I use
the Accusative-Dative case -a, I get:
atam pitakeha payikome
"Adam/the humanoid sees (someone named) Animal." 
Would the following using the Directive case -tu be better? The verb is
still unambiguously transitive
atam pitaketu payikome
"Adam/the humanoid sees (towards) the animal."
Even with this structure, however, "atam" could be a n
>
>Alex