Print

Print


Here's a fun data point. Bulgarian has conjugation and is prodrop, but has
no infinitives. Verbs are always conjugated for somebody, and if it's
absolutely necessary for them not to have a subject, theyre 3rd person
reflexive. Ne se pravi = it is not done/one doesn't do it

My daughters when they were babies both started using the SECOND person
conjugation. I think because they were mimicking people talking to them.

Grandma: iskash li zelenchutsi? = do you want vegetables?
Baby: ne iskash! = i don't want (them)! (lit. You don't want)



On Wed, Jan 30, 2019, 3:21 AM Alfrún Trollsdóttir <[log in to unmask]
wrote:

> 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
> >
>