Print

Print


On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 4:39 AM, Jan Strasser <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jan 2013 11:46:16 -0800, Gary Shannon wrote:
>>
>> From:    Gary Shannon<[log in to unmask]>

>> My conlang was initially set up to be SAOVI where A is an optional aux
>> marking tense/aspect/mood, and I is an optional indirect object. So in
>> a sense, my word order is already SVOV where the verb is split into
>> its root and its TAM marker.
[---snip---]
>
> Here's how BNz would handle the example sentences you gave:
>
> did.3s>3 the.NOM boy the.ACC dog see
> AuxSOV
> "The boy saw the dog."
>
> did.3s>3 the.NOM boy the.ACC dog which.3s>3 a.ACC bone have see
> AuxSO(AuxOV)V
> "The boy saw the dog that had a bone."
[---snip---]
>
> -- Jan

@Jan:

I really like the idea of putting a required Aux at the front of the
sentence or clause.

Consider the two pieces of information:

	Did boy dog see.
	Did dog bone have.

Now if we nest them by replacing the object "dog" with the sentence
that describes the dog we get:

	Did boy [did dog bone have] see.
	Did boy did dog bone have see.

Somehow that feels a lot easier to parse to me. I understand the two
sequential verbs at the end more readily.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 8:32 AM, Tim Smith <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On 1/4/2013 2:46 PM, Gary Shannon wrote:
[---snip---]

@Tim:

That's very interesting. I'm going to have to study your examples and
see what more I can learn about those languages. It strikes me as a
very elegant solution.

--gary

>>
> There's a group of West African languages, including Maninka and its close
> relatives, that have the same basic SAOV order that yours does. The way they
> handle relative clauses strikes me as very elegant.  The head noun of the
> relative clause is kept within the relative clause, but the relative clause
> is not nested within the matrix clause; instead, it's preposed, with a
> special relative particle marking the head, and a resumptive pronoun marking
> the position that the head would have occupied in the matrix clause if it
> hadn't been relativized.
>
> So your first example would be (where REL is the relative particle and THAT
> is the resumptive pronoun):
>
> Dog REL did bone have, boy did THAT see.
> "The boy saw the dog that had the bone."
>
> This structure makes it possible to relativize on positions other than
> subject, which I don't see how either of your alternatives would do without
> ambiguity, e.g., to relativize on "bone" instead of on "dog":
>
> Dog did bone REL have, boy did THAT see.
> "The boy saw the bone that the dog had."
>
> It can also be applied recursively, as in your last example:
>
> I did dog REL just see, THAT did boy REL bark-at, THAT was scared.
>
> "The boy that the dog I just saw barked at was scared."
>
> OR, a little more like real Maninka, which puts only the direct object
> between the auxiliary and the lexical verb, but puts oblique objects with
> postpositions after the lexical verb:
> I did dog REL just see, that did bark boy REL at, that was scared.
>
> (Or maybe that should be "scared was" instead of "was scared" -- I don't
> know whether Maninka treats a copula like an auxiliary or like a lexical
> verb, or even whether it has a copula at all.)
>
> This system of extraposed head-internal relative clauses is an extremely
> powerful relativization strategy.  But I don't know how compatible it is
> with your vision of this conlang; I must admit I haven't been following this
> thread closely.
>
> - Tim