Print

Print


 On 13 April 2017 at 15:50, The Scribbler
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> If there's no noun/verb distinction, I'm having trouble figuring out if a standard alignment name is even relevant?

There's no lexical noun/verb distinction, but there is a syntactic
one; i.e., there are verb phrases, which assign roles to arguments,
and there are syntactically determiner/noun phrases which can fill
those argument positions. Both kinds of phrase just happen to be
headed by the same class of lexical roots.

> Wouldn't this be a case of serial verbs?

The language does have serial verb constructions, but I purposefully
left them out of this set of examples. An example of a serial verb
construction is as follows:

Lesa ta wonba lwuuxa-la
Lesa-0 ta wonba lwuuxa-0
Lisa-3 INDEF good woman-3
"Lisa is a good woman." / "One who is a good woman is Lisa."

wonba lwuuxa txe Lesa-la
wonba lwuuxa-0 txe Lesa-0=la
good woman-3 DEF Lisa-3=ART
"Lisa is a good woman."

dwu-wonba lwuuxank
dwu=wonba lwuuxa-nk
2sg=good woman-2
"You are a good woman."

In these examples, the predicates <wonba> "good" and <lwuuxa> "woman"
are serialized, occupying a single verb phrase, and take a single set
of inflections.

> I suppose whichever order your pronominals default affix.

Unfortunately, the answer to that is "there is no order", because the
polypersonal agreement suffixes are fusional.

I suppose that would be ore obvious if I actually did proper
interlinear glossing. I figured these examples were simple enough that
the glosses would be obvious, but I suppose that's my bias as the
creator who already *knows* how things work showing through.

So, I went back over all the examples and added in proper interlinear
glosses (and added a couple more). I put those in below, because, hey,
why not- but I think that in doing so, I may have uncovered the source
of my confusion!

The problem is best illustrated by the following set of test sentences:

"The one I hit is a coyote" vs. "The one who hits me is a coyote"
&
"The one you hit is a coyote" vs. "The one who hits you is a coyote"

In all four cases, we have to take the verb <tupund> "hit" and
relativize the 3rd person argument, so that we can say that it is "is
a coyote". That means that we have to make the 3rd person argument the
grammatical subject, because Valaklwuuxa only allows relativizing
subjects.

Because of the animacy hierarchy, 3p arguments paired with either 1p
or 2p arguments are, by default, objects, so we need to use the
inverse voice marker to make them into subjects instead. And that
applies in all four cases.

However, in the "The one [I/you] hit is a coyote", the 3p argument
needs to remain as a semantic patient, even though it's being put in
subject position, while in "The one who hits [me/you] is a coyote",
the semantic roles need to be flipped *as well as* the syntactic
roles. And it turns out I have implicitly been having the inverse
voice marker serving both functions, without realizing it until now!
Which means that each of those kinds of sentences ends up being
translated *the same way*.

Bother!

I think other examples do tend to indicate that the hierarchy is still
relevant to thematic role assignment, so Direct-Inverse / Hierarchical
alignment is still the correct classification, but I think I need to
do some re-organizing of how the voice system and relativization rules
work.

-l.

P.S.

The Complete Interlinearized Examples:

Transitives with strictly pronominal arguments:

"I hit you"

? xe-tupundks
xe=tupund-ks
1sg=hit-2/1sg

xe-tupundsaks
xe=tupund-sa-ks
1sg=hit-INV-2/1sg


"I hit him"
xe-tupundka
xe=tupund-ka
1sg=hit-1/3sg


"I hit myself"
xe-tupunddaba
xe=tupund-ndaba
1sg=hit-1.REF


"You hit me"
dwu-tupundks
dwu=tupund-ks
2sg=hit-2/1sg


"You hit him"
dwu-tupundsk
dwu=tupund-sk
2sg=hit-2/3sg


"You hit yourself"
dwu-tupundskuga
dwu=tupund-skuga
2sg=hit-2.REF


"He hits me"

? le-tupundka
le=tupund-ka
3sg=hit-1/3sg

le-tupundsaka
le=tupund-sa-ka
3sg=hit-INV-1/3sg


"He hits you"

? le-tupundsk
le=tupund-sk
3sg=hit-2/3sg

le-tupundsask
le=tupund-sa-sk
3sg-hit-INV-2/3sg

"He hits him"
le-tupund
le=tupund-0
3sg=hit-3/3sg

"He hits himself"
le-tupundba
le=tupund-ba
3sg=hit-3.REF


Transitives with pronominal subjects:

"I hit a coyote"
xe-tupundka ta nk'ap-la
xe=tupund-ka ta nk'ap-0=la
1sg=hit-1/3sg INDEF coyote-3=ART

"You hit a coyote"
dwu-tupundsk ta nk'ap-la
dwu=tupund-sk ta nk'ap-0=la
2sg=hit-2/3sg INDEF coyote-3=ART

"He hits a coyote"
le-tupund ta nk'ap-la
le=tupund-0 ta nk'ap-0=la
3sg=hit-3/3sg INDEF coyote-3=ART

"The one I hit is a coyote"
nk'ap txe tupundsaka
nk'ap-0 txe tupund-sa-ka
coyote-3 DEF hit-INV-1/3sg

"The one you hit is a coyote"
nk'ap txe tupundsask
nk'ap-0 txe tupund-sa-sk
coyote-3 DEF hit-INV-2/3sg

"The one he hits is a coyote"
nk'ap txe tupundsa
nk'ap-0 txe tupund-sa-0
coyote-3 DEF hit-INV-3/3sg


Transitives with pronominal objects:

"The coyote hits me"

? tupundka txe nk'ap-la
tupund-ka txe nk'ap-0=la
hit-1/3sg DEF coyote-3=ART

tupundsaka txe nk'ap-la
tupund-sa-ka txe nk'ap-0=la
hit-INV-1/3sg DEF coyote-3=ART


"The coyote hits you"

? tupundsk txe nk'ap-la
tupund-sk txe nk'ap-0=la
hit-2/3sg DEF coyote-3=ART

tupundsask txe nk'ap-la
tupund-sa-sk txe nk'ap-0=la
hit-INV-2/3sg DEF coyote-3=ART


"The coyote hits him"
tupund txe nk'ap-la
tupund-0 txe nk'ap-0=la
hit-3/3sg DEF coyote-3=ART

"The coyote hits itself"
tupundba txe nk'ap-la
tupund-ba txe nk'ap-0=la
hit-3.REF DEF coyote-3=ART


(It turns out I made an error on these next two the first time round,
which I noticed when going back to do the interlinears.)

"The one who hits me is a coyote"
nk'ap txe tupundsaka
nk'ap-0 txe tupund-sa-ka
coyote-3 DEF hit-INV-1/3sg

"The one who hits you is a coyote"
nk'ap txe tupundsask
nk'ap-0 txe tupund-sa-sk
coyote-0 DEF hit-INV-2/3sg

"The one who hits him is a coyote"
nk'ap txe tupund
nk'ap-0 txe tupund-0
coyote-3 DEF hit-3/3sg

"The one who hits himself is a coyote"
nk'ap txe tupundba
nk'ap-0 txe tupund-ba
coyote-3 DEF hit-3.REF


Transitives with two nominal arguments:

"The man hits a coyote"
swetqe txe tupund ta nk'ap-la
swetqe-0 txe tupund-0 ta nk'ap-0=la
man-3 DEF hit-0 INDEF coyote-3=ART

"The one the man hits is a coyote"
nk'ap txe tupundsa txe swetqe-la
nk'ap-0 txe tupund-sa-0 txe swetqe-0=la
coyote-3 DEF hit-INV-3/3sg DEF man-3=ART

"The one who hits the man is a coyote"
nk'ap txe tupund txe swetqe-la
nk'ap-0 txe tupund-0 txe swetqe-0=la
coyote-3 DEF hit-3/3sg DEF man-3=ART


Intransitives:

"I trip"
xe-latqwond
xe=latqwo-nd
1sg=trip-1.EXC

"You trip"
dwu-latqwonk
dwu=latqo-nk
2sg=trip-2.1.INC

"He trips"
le-latqwo
le=latqo-0
3sg=trip-3

"The coyote trips"
latqwo txe nk'ap-la
latqwo-0 txe nk'ap-0=la
trip-3 DEF coyote-3=ART

"The one who trips is a coyote"
nk'ap txe latqwo
nk'ap-0 txe latqwo-0
coyote-3 DEF trip-3