Print

Print


Define permit. When talking about composing a text in Polish one must know,
that in theory Polish word order is not determined, but in real usage there
are stylistic preferences. So one describes Polish as SVO based on
statistics, not grammatical constraints. So if one is determined, anything
goes, but it can sound more than cumbersome.

Let's see with an example:
Czyta|ła|m wczoraj książk|ę.
read|PAST.FEMININE|1SG yesterday book|ACC.
I (a woman) read/was reading a book yesterday.

It can be done. If you require more exmples, I can check in a proper
grammar, but maybe at more sociable hour.

BTW, in the example using "ja" (I) would be an error. Unless it was
something like "John was reading a book yesterday. - No, _I_ was reading a
book yesterday" (No short answers in Polish).

śr., 30 sty 2019 o 00:57 Logan Kearsley <[log in to unmask]> napisał(a):

> On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 at 16:42, Alfrún Trollsdóttir
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > Take Polish - it inflects verbs by number, person and gender, and is
> > pron-drop. I don't know stats for infinitives with language aquisition,
> but
> > both my younger siblings, and my cousins' children were using inflected
> > forms when learning. (I am a native speaker).
> >
> > On the subjct of defining pron-drop language as one that allows to drop
> > pronouns as subject, Polish demands it. I mean noone uses pronouns as a
> > subject until it carries additional meaning. Otherise it is a big
> stylistic
> > error. I mean I still, after learning English for over 20 years, have to
> > often check whether I skipped pronouns as subject or not. In all foreign
> > languages I know.
> > Phrase "it rains" is not a perfect example, because although in normal
> > every day Polish it is in fact "pada" - "(it) falls", but that can also
> > refer to any other type of precipitation, and hearing "pada" you
> > automaticly think of rain, because the whole phrase is "Pada deszcz"
> (Rain
> > falls). Better would be "Grzmi." (It thunders).
> >
> > It always was strange for me that both Russian and Icelandic have good
> > conjugation, but still require pronoun subject, and Japanese doesn't.
>
> Indeed! If the explanation offered in that paper for *why* Russian
> requires subject pronouns in most cases is accurate (i.e., that there
> is a lack of underlying verb movement to license the use of a null
> pronoun, and that subject pronouns themselves are not actually
> examples of DPs/NPs but rather a lexicalization of an Agr node), that
> would seem to me to be just about the strongest evidence I know of for
> the psychological reality of abstract syntax!
>
> On which note: does Polish permit inserting adverbs between the verb
> and object when using SVO word order?
>
> -l.
>
> > wt., 29 sty 2019 o 23:26 Logan Kearsley <[log in to unmask]>
> napisał(a):
> >
> > > On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 at 14:44, Aidan Aannestad <[log in to unmask]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Japanese arguably doesn't have an 'infinitive' though, or at least
> > > > anything analogous to an IE infinitive. Do you mean 'base uninflected
> > > > form'? That form is 100% valid as the verb of a main clause.
> > >
> > > That would seem to make doing a comparable test rather difficult--but
> > > English has similar issues, and while they make it harder to collect
> > > significant amounts of usable data, it's not impossible. The base
> > > uninflected form of English verbs is also a valid finite form, but you
> > > can still do the test on English L1 learners by identifying places
> > > where a different form *should've* been used in adult speech, but the
> > > child substituted the base form instead.
> > >
> > > -l.
> > >
> > > > On 2019/01/29 15:42, Logan Kearsley wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 at 13:28, Aidan Aannestad <
> [log in to unmask]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >> It's a bit surprising to me to hear that about verb inflections -
> > > > >> Japanese is /very/ pro-drop, and yet has no agreement marking on
> the
> > > > >> verb at all.
> > > > > That's a good point. I wonder what the infinitive usage statistics
> are
> > > > > for children acquiring Japanese as their L1....
> > > > >
> > > > > -l.
> > > > >
> > > > >> On 2019/01/28 18:22, Logan Kearsley wrote:
> > > > >>> This is a fairly old paper, but I only recently discovered it,
> and
> > > > >>> found it terribly interesting:
> > > > >>> http://web.uconn.edu/snyder/papers/EB_WS_FASL.pdf
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> For one thing, it introduced me to an interesting developmental
> test
> > > > >>> for the "pro-drop" classification: If kids use a lot of
> infinitive
> > > > >>> forms before learning proper finite verb inflections, your
> language
> > > is
> > > > >>> *not* actually pro-drop. No particular reason for why that
> should be
> > > > >>> is presented, but it kinda makes sense to me: if the adults
> around
> > > you
> > > > >>> don't actually drop subject pronouns very often, then
> inflectional
> > > > >>> information in the verb is less important; but, if they do,
> verbal
> > > > >>> inflection becomes much more important for encoding thematic
> > > subjects,
> > > > >>> so it makes sense that it would be learned faster.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Possibly of more direct relevance to conlangers: a distinction is
> > > made
> > > > >>> between dropping expletive subjects vs. thematic subjects (where
> only
> > > > >>> dropping thematic subjects "counts" as pro-dropping). I think
> this
> > > > >>> intuitively makes sense to a lot of people (i.e., all of the
> > > > >>> conlangers who include something in the grammar to the effect of
> "if
> > > > >>> you want to say 'it's raining', my language leaves out the 'it',
> > > > >>> because it's dumb."), but I haven't before seen it formally
> > > > >>> distinguished as a separate syntactic parameter.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> -l.
> > >
>