Print

Print


My example was stylisticly unmarked - it was just a normal sentence from
the to of my head.

Alright, I just tried to write about the SVO + A three times aaaand came to
conclusion it merits proper research and checking with language database. I
would say VAO or AVO is the most natural, depending on lexemes and context
(sometimes also on phonetics), and probably SVA(O). Although I personally
try to omit adverbials expressed by adverb derived from adjective and
object in one sentence (But not ones like yesterday, today, tomorrow, they
work well). It doesn't flow properly, it litterally sounds for me
(personally) as if someone tries to give you two new pieces of information
at one time, but I can be mistaken/it can be that it is my idiolect being
differnt. If I don't reply within a week, remind me, Logan.

śr., 30 sty 2019 o 01:50 Eyal Minsky-Fenick <[log in to unmask]> napisał(a):

> *I read quickly the book.
> ?I read, quickly, the book.
> ?I read — quickly — the book
> I read (quickly) the book.
>
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 7:38 PM Logan Kearsley <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 at 17:15, Alfrún Trollsdóttir
> > <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Define permit.
> >
> > Hah! That is kind of the core issue, isn't it... let's go with
> > "stylistically" marked. I.e., is something like *"I read quickly the
> > book" (which is ungrammatical in English, and at the very least
> > stylistically marked in Russian) totally unremarkable in Polish?
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > So it sounds like it is *possible*, but not normal. Darn! If such
> > constructions were *not* stylistically marked in Polish, it would help
> > back up the abstract-syntax explanation for why pronouns are usually
> > not dropped in Russian....
> >
> > -l.
> >
> > > 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.
> > > > > >
> > > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Eyal Joseph Minsky-Fenick
> [log in to unmask] (personal)
> 203-988-2234 (cell)
> 23 Temple Ct., New Haven, CT 06511-6820
>