On 2 May 2012 00:47, Amanda Babcock Furrow <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 06:22:22PM -0400, Allison Nicol wrote: > >> Hey there, everybody. I'm new (to this list, obviously, but also fairly >> new to conlanging) and I was wondering if some of you much more experienced >> people could point me in the direction of some resources. I'm looking >> for any webpages, papers, books, etc. that compare and contrast the way >> various languages approach particular linguistic problems, but specifically, >> right now I'm curious about how various languages create complement >> phrases/complementizers. > > I think this was the book I was reading snippets from online when I was > trying to design complementation for mirexu: > > Complementation > Robert M. W. Dixon, Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald > http://books.google.com/books?id=r4a7kCH4oFAC Google books doesn't give much of a preview, but what they do give give was interesting. They analyze languages not in terms of how they form complement clauses, but rather in terms of what strategies they use for complementation, with a clause type specific to that role being one option. There's also co-opting other clause types (like relative clauses), which can result in syntactic ambiguity, and using some form of nominalization. It causes me to think that maybe Gogido, Mev Pailom, Palno, and Celimine don't actually have "complement clauses" after all, since clauses that are used as complements are syntactically indistinguishable from matrix clauses in all four (except for being surrounded by another clause). Interesting trend in my conlanging style. On 4 May 2012 09:39, David McCann <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > On Thu, 3 May 2012 10:26:05 -0600 > Logan Kearsley <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> Do you have examples of languages that use paratactic constructions >> for complements? I'm not entirely sure I know what that would look >> like. > > Both clauses will have a fully inflected verb and the complement clause > will have a normal verb type and no complementiser or other marker to > show that it's subordinate. The construction is an areal feature in > Africa. Lango (Nilotic) has > Àtín òpòpyò òcègò dɔ̀gòlà > child remember.PAST.3SG close.PAST.3SG door > and > Àtín òpòpyò cèggò dɔ̀gòlà > child remember.PAST.3SG close.INFIN door > both meaning > The child remembered to close the door. In this case it appears to be sharing a subject; is the language otherwise pro-drop, so "close.PAST.3SG door" could stand on its own as a complete clause? And does it work when there is another subject explicitly mentioned for the complement clause? -l.