Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Tukang Besi (was Re: THEORY: Cross-Referencing the Arguments of Consecutive Verbs, And Similar Things)

Expand Messages
  • David J. Peterson
    Tom wrote:
    Message 1 of 10 , Jun 30, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Tom wrote:
      <<
      Hello, anyone who feels like answering.
      >>

      I have kind of a response, but not a specific one. I had some
      trouble trying to picture what you were describing. Examples
      would be helpful. :)

      Anyway, you mentioned applicatives, and whether are not they
      can occur in ergative languages. The answer is, of course, yes.
      And I have a kind of example from Tukang Besi, though I don't
      believe this language can accurately be classified as accusative,
      ergative, trigger, or anything I've even ever really seen. It's
      quite an extraordinary language, and I hope I can explain it
      accurately.

      All of this is based on a talk that was given at the undergrad.
      typology class I TA'd at UCSD by Mark Donohue (visiting from
      the University of Singapore). He's an amazing guy. I'm going
      to try to reconstruct what he said about Tukang Besi (a language
      for which he wrote the grammar) based on his handout, which
      can be downloaded at the following url:

      http://ling.ucsd.edu/~djp/dlstuff/verbinitialhandout.pdf

      Tukang Besi is a language of central Indonesia, and is at least
      distantly related to Tagalog. It has an agreement pattern and
      case marking system that strikes me as really quite fascinating.
      Below are some facts which would lead one to believe that
      Tukang Besi is simply a nominative/accusative language:

      (1)
      (a) Ku'ita te ana (na iaku). /1sg.-see ACC. child (NOM. I)/ "I saw a
      child."
      (b) *Ku'ita na iaku te ana. For same. [word order = VOS]
      (c) Kurato (na iaku) di kampo. /1sg.-arrive (NOM. I) OBL. village/
      "I arrived at the village."

      So, essentially, the order is VOS, the language is a prodrop language,
      and oblique arguments follow the subject.

      Now here's an alternative way of expressing (1a).

      (2)
      (a) Ku'ita'e (te iaku) na ana. /1sg.-see-3sg. (ACC.? I) NOM.?
      child/ "I saw the child."
      (b) Ku'ita'e na ana te iaku. Variant word order is grammatical.

      So now the case marking has switched, the subject is now obligatory
      and the object non-obligatory, and the word order is flexible.
      Importantly, though, this wasn't triggered by a valence-changing
      affix, but by the presence of optional third person object agreement
      on the verb (somewhat reminiscent of Georgian).

      So far, the system can be summarized as follows:

      (3)
      (a) Monovalent verbs: Agrees with the subject via prefix, and the
      lone argument is marked with /na/.
      (b) Bivalent verbs: If the object is not marked on the verb, the
      agent is marked with a prefix, the word order is VP(A), /na/
      marks the agent, and /te/ the patient.
      (c) Bivalent verbs: If the object is marked on the verb, the agent
      is marked with a prefix and the patient with a suffix. The word
      order is either V(P)A or VA(P), /te/ marks the agent, and /na/
      marks the patient.

      A confusing, but regular system. Now for a ditransitive sentence:

      (4)
      (a) Kuhu'uke te boku (te iaku) na ana. /1sg.-give-3sg. ACC.? book
      (ACC.? I) NOM.? child/ "I gave the child a book."

      Now the "nominative" case is marking the recipient, and the
      "accusative" case is marking both the agent and patient (or theme),
      with the subject yet again the pro-droppable argument.

      The way Donohue characterized these case markers is as follows:

      (5)
      (a) di = a general oblique/adjunct marker
      (b) te = marks core terms not marked by /na/
      (c) na = marks one obligatory term in the clause (marks the P or IO
      if the verb has object marking; otherwise, marks S or A)

      Interestingly, there are several passive markers which tend
      not to be used (or are certainly not as common as the English
      passive) which are rather specific:

      (6)
      (a) Noto'ita na ana. "The child was seen."
      (b) Note'ita na ana. "The child happened to get seen."
      (c) Nomo'ita na ana. "The child was visible."
      (d) Nopo'ita'ita na ana. "The children looked at each other.

      That latter is a reciprocal marker.

      In addition to this, there's an applicative marker (and it seems
      to be lexicalized which verb takes which applicative marker).
      So you can get the following (using an intransitive verb):

      (7)
      (a) Norato na mori di kampo. /3sg.-arrive NOM. student OBL.
      village/ "The students arrived at the village." (Normal)
      (b) Noratomi te kampo na mori. "The students arrived at the
      village." (Applicative)
      (c) Noratomi'e na kampo te mori. "The students arrived at the
      village." (Applicative + Obj. Marking)
      (d) Notoratomi na kampo. "The village was arrived at." (Applicative
      + Passive)

      So essentially there are a bunch of different ways to say the
      same thing. Why? Donohue said that the privileged nature of
      the /na/ marker allowed it to be used pragmatically for particular
      stylistic reasons. He offers a couple stories (which I won't
      transcribe,
      but just describe) as examples. One of them involves a chicken
      and a woman named Wa Sabusaburengki. The story goes like this
      (I'll mark what argument gets marked with what case in parentheses):

      (8)
      (a) Once upon a time, there was a (INST) lady, and her (te) name
      was (te) Wa Sabusaburengki.
      (b) (Te) Wa Sabusaburengki was going to decapitate a (te) chicken.
      (c) Just as (pro-drop) she was about to decapitate that (na) chicken...
      (d) ...(na) the chicken said...

      So up until the second verb "decapitate", no verb has object agreement.
      Object agreement is used on the second verb "decapitate", so that the
      chicken, the patient, can be marked with /na/. And why mark "the
      chicken" with /na/? Because up until that point, the story introduces
      the woman and talks about what she's doing. /Na/ is used to alert
      the listener that a change in subject is coming up. And then when
      "the chicken" appears as the subject again, /na/ is used again.

      This example was fairly simple. Mark also gave a much longer
      story that essentially tracks all its arguments throughout in one
      way or another so that they can be referred to with /na/ whenever
      they become the focus of attention. This is done with agreement
      marking on the verb, applicatives, and passives--all of it for
      pragmatic purposes.

      So, that's about a third of his handout. The rest goes into the
      history of the language, which is even more interesting (and
      which Austronesian buffs will find familiar). Anyway, this is
      a really interesting system that I've wanted to share for awhile,
      but I've been busy. It probably would've been better to try
      to explain it right when I heard about and it was fresh in my
      mind, but at least I can offer the handout for you to look at on
      your own.

      -David
      *******************************************************************
      "sunly eleSkarez ygralleryf ydZZixelje je ox2mejze."
      "No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn."

      -Jim Morrison

      http://dedalvs.free.fr/
    • Roger Mills
      ... Also available: http://courses.nus.edu.sg/course/ellmd/TkBvoice.pdf (I haven t yet compared the two.) ... Specifically, on some islands off the SE tip of
      Message 2 of 10 , Jul 1 10:01 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        David Peterson wrote:


        > All of this is based on a talk that was given at the undergrad.
        > typology class I TA'd at UCSD by Mark Donohue (visiting from
        > the University of Singapore). He's an amazing guy. I'm going
        > to try to reconstruct what he said about Tukang Besi (a language
        > for which he wrote the grammar) based on his handout, which
        > can be downloaded at the following url:
        >
        > http://ling.ucsd.edu/~djp/dlstuff/verbinitialhandout.pdf

        Also available: http://courses.nus.edu.sg/course/ellmd/TkBvoice.pdf
        (I haven't yet compared the two.)

        >
        > Tukang Besi is a language of central Indonesia...

        Specifically, on some islands off the SE tip of Sulawesi. The name means
        "iron smith/expert", and I've always wondered if, somehow, they were a
        source of iron in early times. That could have made the islands an important
        trading station.

        and is at least
        > distantly related to Tagalog. It has an agreement pattern and
        > case marking system that strikes me as really quite fascinating.
        > Below are some facts which would lead one to believe that
        > Tukang Besi is simply a nominative/accusative language:
        >
        > (1)
        > (a) Ku'ita te ana (na iaku). /1sg.-see ACC. child (NOM. I)/ "I saw a
        > child."
        > (b) *Ku'ita na iaku te ana. For same. [word order = VOS]
        > (c) Kurato (na iaku) di kampo. /1sg.-arrive (NOM. I) OBL. village/
        > "I arrived at the village."
        >
        > So, essentially, the order is VOS, the language is a prodrop language,
        > and oblique arguments follow the subject.
        >
        > Now here's an alternative way of expressing (1a).
        >
        > (2)
        > (a) Ku'ita'e (te iaku) na ana. /1sg.-see-3sg. (ACC.? I) NOM.?
        > child/ "I saw the child."
        > (b) Ku'ita'e na ana te iaku. Variant word order is grammatical.

        Another distinction between the two sentences-- which I don't see
        mentioned-- is that (1a) has indefinite object; (2a) definite. This reminds
        me of the different verb agreement patterns in Buginese, spoken in SW
        Sulawesi. Buginese is an important language in the area--they were
        inveterate wanderers and traders/pirates around Sulawesi, indeed all over
        Indonesia. There are little colonies of them everywhere, and they tend to
        control local trade, have great prestige-- and linguistic influence is very
        possible.

        These would be the Bug. equivalents of the two sentences:
        (1a.i) mitaka? ana?
        m-ita-ka? ana?
        PFX-see-I/subj. child/indef. "I see/saw a child"
        You wouldn't ordinarily include the 1s pronoun (iya?)-- if you did, it would
        be emphatic (and I don't recall whether the verb agrees in that case). The
        m- prefix might best be glossed "active" or perhaps "agent focus"

        (2a.i) uitai ana?e
        u-ita-i ana?-e
        I/subj-see-3/obj. child-def. "I see/saw the child"

        And a monovalent (intrans.) verb--
        laoka? ri kampong(e)
        lao-ka? .....
        go-I/subj. LOC village "I'm going to a(the) village"

        > The way Donohue characterized these case markers is as follows:
        >
        > (5)
        > (a) di = a general oblique/adjunct marker
        > (b) te = marks core terms not marked by /na/
        > (c) na = marks one obligatory term in the clause (marks the P or IO
        > if the verb has object marking; otherwise, marks S or A)

        Well, aside from di (Bug. ri) this is very different from the Bug....
        >
        > Interestingly, there are several passive markers which tend
        > not to be used (or are certainly not as common as the English
        > passive) which are rather specific:
        >
        > (6)
        > (a) Noto'ita na ana. "The child was seen."
        > (b) Note'ita na ana. "The child happened to get seen."
        > (c) Nomo'ita na ana. "The child was visible."
        > (d) Nopo'ita'ita na ana. "The children looked at each other.

        Comparable expressions are available (and also uncommon) in Bug. though with
        different but (often) cognate morphology; likewise in other languages of SE
        Sulawesi, which are more closely related to TkB

        >
        > In addition to this, there's an applicative marker (and it seems
        > to be lexicalized which verb takes which applicative marker).
        > So you can get the following (using an intransitive verb):
        >
        > (7)
        > (a) Norato na mori di kampo. /3sg.-arrive NOM. student OBL.
        > village/ "The students arrived at the village." (Normal)
        > (b) Noratomi te kampo na mori. "The students arrived at the
        > village." (Applicative)
        > (c) Noratomi'e na kampo te mori. "The students arrived at the
        > village." (Applicative + Obj. Marking)
        > (d) Notoratomi na kampo. "The village was arrived at." (Applicative
        > + Passive)

        This /-(C)i/ suffix is also widespread, with pretty much this meaning (and
        often lexicalized). In most languages it (1) transitivizes the verb and (2)
        refers to the object-- usually a "location" broadly speaking.

        Thanks for posting this really interesting (to me, anyway) material.
      • tomhchappell
        ... A probably not-best example of the Middle Welsh can be found at http://canol.home.att.net/chap25.html A discussion of the waw-consecutive can be found at
        Message 3 of 10 , Jul 1 11:06 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In conlang@yahoogroups.com, "David J. Peterson" <dedalvs@G...>
          wrote:
          > Tom wrote:
          > <<
          > Hello, anyone who feels like answering.
          > >>
          >
          > I have kind of a response, but not a specific one. I had some
          > trouble trying to picture what you were describing. Examples
          > would be helpful. :)

          A probably not-best example of the Middle Welsh can be found at
          http://canol.home.att.net/chap25.html

          A discussion of the waw-consecutive can be found at
          http://www.basicsofbiblicalhebrew.com/Files/consecutive2.pdf
          On the 6th page of that 17 page document (page 197 of the journal it
          was in) is a discussion of Genesis 4:1, which is a waw-consecutive
          sentence, so they say.

          There appears to be some disagreement about the existence and use of
          waw-consecutive as a pragmatic device for thematic progression and
          coherence of discourse and narrative in other Semitic languages such
          as Aramaic.

          One good serial verb example is here:
          http://www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsASerial
          VerbConstruction.htm

          More serial verb examples are here:
          http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/HPSG/1/hpsg00muansuwan.pdf

          Google turns up others; these two seemed at first glance they might
          be the best of the first ten.

          >
          > Anyway, you mentioned applicatives, and whether are not they
          > can occur in ergative languages. The answer is, of course, yes.
          > And I have a kind of example from Tukang Besi, though I don't
          > believe this language can accurately be classified as accusative,
          > ergative, trigger, or anything I've even ever really seen. It's
          > quite an extraordinary language, and I hope I can explain it
          > accurately.
          >
          > All of this is based on a talk that was given at the undergrad.
          > typology class I TA'd at UCSD by Mark Donohue (visiting from
          > the University of Singapore). He's an amazing guy. I'm going
          > to try to reconstruct what he said about Tukang Besi (a language
          > for which he wrote the grammar) based on his handout, which
          > can be downloaded at the following url:
          >
          > http://ling.ucsd.edu/~djp/dlstuff/verbinitialhandout.pdf

          Thanks. I printed it off.

          >
          > Tukang Besi is a language of central Indonesia, and is at least
          > distantly related to Tagalog. It has an agreement pattern and
          > case marking system that strikes me as really quite fascinating.
          > Below are some facts which would lead one to believe that
          > Tukang Besi is simply a nominative/accusative language:
          >
          > (1)
          > (a) Ku'ita te ana (na iaku). /1sg.-see ACC. child (NOM. I)/ "I saw
          a
          > child."
          > (b) *Ku'ita na iaku te ana. For same. [word order = VOS]
          > (c) Kurato (na iaku) di kampo. /1sg.-arrive (NOM. I) OBL.
          village/
          > "I arrived at the village."
          >
          > So, essentially, the order is VOS, the language is a prodrop
          language,
          > and oblique arguments follow the subject.
          >
          > Now here's an alternative way of expressing (1a).
          >
          > (2)
          > (a) Ku'ita'e (te iaku) na ana. /1sg.-see-3sg. (ACC.? I) NOM.?
          > child/ "I saw the child."
          > (b) Ku'ita'e na ana te iaku. Variant word order is grammatical.
          >
          > So now the case marking has switched, the subject is now obligatory
          > and the object non-obligatory, and the word order is flexible.
          > Importantly, though, this wasn't triggered by a valence-changing
          > affix, but by the presence of optional third person object agreement
          > on the verb (somewhat reminiscent of Georgian).
          >
          > So far, the system can be summarized as follows:
          >
          > (3)
          > (a) Monovalent verbs: Agrees with the subject via prefix, and the
          > lone argument is marked with /na/.
          > (b) Bivalent verbs: If the object is not marked on the verb, the
          > agent is marked with a prefix, the word order is VP(A), /na/
          > marks the agent, and /te/ the patient.
          > (c) Bivalent verbs: If the object is marked on the verb, the agent
          > is marked with a prefix and the patient with a suffix. The word
          > order is either V(P)A or VA(P), /te/ marks the agent, and /na/
          > marks the patient.
          >
          > A confusing, but regular system. Now for a ditransitive sentence:
          >
          > (4)
          > (a) Kuhu'uke te boku (te iaku) na ana. /1sg.-give-3sg. ACC.? book
          > (ACC.? I) NOM.? child/ "I gave the child a book."
          >
          > Now the "nominative" case is marking the recipient, and the
          > "accusative" case is marking both the agent and patient (or theme),
          > with the subject yet again the pro-droppable argument.
          >
          > The way Donohue characterized these case markers is as follows:
          >
          > (5)
          > (a) di = a general oblique/adjunct marker
          > (b) te = marks core terms not marked by /na/
          > (c) na = marks one obligatory term in the clause (marks the P or
          IO
          > if the verb has object marking; otherwise, marks S or A)
          >
          > Interestingly, there are several passive markers which tend
          > not to be used (or are certainly not as common as the English
          > passive) which are rather specific:
          >
          > (6)
          > (a) Noto'ita na ana. "The child was seen."
          > (b) Note'ita na ana. "The child happened to get seen."
          > (c) Nomo'ita na ana. "The child was visible."
          > (d) Nopo'ita'ita na ana. "The children looked at each other.
          >
          > That latter is a reciprocal marker.
          >
          > In addition to this, there's an applicative marker (and it seems
          > to be lexicalized which verb takes which applicative marker).
          > So you can get the following (using an intransitive verb):
          >
          > (7)
          > (a) Norato na mori di kampo. /3sg.-arrive NOM. student OBL.
          > village/ "The students arrived at the village." (Normal)
          > (b) Noratomi te kampo na mori. "The students arrived at the
          > village." (Applicative)
          > (c) Noratomi'e na kampo te mori. "The students arrived at the
          > village." (Applicative + Obj. Marking)
          > (d) Notoratomi na kampo. "The village was arrived at."
          (Applicative
          > + Passive)
          >
          > So essentially there are a bunch of different ways to say the
          > same thing. Why? Donohue said that the privileged nature of
          > the /na/ marker allowed it to be used pragmatically for particular
          > stylistic reasons. He offers a couple stories (which I won't
          > transcribe,
          > but just describe) as examples. One of them involves a chicken
          > and a woman named Wa Sabusaburengki. The story goes like this
          > (I'll mark what argument gets marked with what case in parentheses):
          >
          > (8)
          > (a) Once upon a time, there was a (INST) lady, and her (te) name
          > was (te) Wa Sabusaburengki.
          > (b) (Te) Wa Sabusaburengki was going to decapitate a (te) chicken.
          > (c) Just as (pro-drop) she was about to decapitate that (na)
          chicken...
          > (d) ...(na) the chicken said...
          >
          > So up until the second verb "decapitate", no verb has object
          agreement.
          > Object agreement is used on the second verb "decapitate", so that
          the
          > chicken, the patient, can be marked with /na/. And why mark "the
          > chicken" with /na/? Because up until that point, the story
          introduces
          > the woman and talks about what she's doing. /Na/ is used to alert
          > the listener that a change in subject is coming up. And then when
          > "the chicken" appears as the subject again, /na/ is used again.
          >
          > This example was fairly simple. Mark also gave a much longer
          > story that essentially tracks all its arguments throughout in one
          > way or another so that they can be referred to with /na/ whenever
          > they become the focus of attention. This is done with agreement
          > marking on the verb, applicatives, and passives--all of it for
          > pragmatic purposes.
          >
          > So, that's about a third of his handout. The rest goes into the
          > history of the language, which is even more interesting (and
          > which Austronesian buffs will find familiar). Anyway, this is
          > a really interesting system that I've wanted to share for awhile,
          > but I've been busy. It probably would've been better to try
          > to explain it right when I heard about and it was fresh in my
          > mind, but at least I can offer the handout for you to look at on
          > your own.
          >

          I will try to understand it.

          Thank you

          Tom H.C. in MI
        • tomhchappell
          ... I gave examples of the waw-consecutive and the serial-verb earlier, but: I forgot to include examples about switch-reference. Here is a place for a simple
          Message 4 of 10 , Jul 1 11:53 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In conlang@yahoogroups.com, "David J. Peterson" <dedalvs@G...>
            wrote:
            > I have kind of a response, but not a specific one. I had some
            > trouble trying to picture what you were describing. Examples
            > would be helpful. :)

            I gave examples of the waw-consecutive and the serial-verb earlier,
            but:

            I forgot to include examples about switch-reference.
            Here is a place for a simple definition and discussion:
            http://www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsSwitchR
            eference.htm

            Some examples are discussed in
            http://muse.jhu.edu/demo/oceanic_linguistics/v038/38.2bradshaw.pdf

            Also, each one of
            http://www.rdg.ac.uk/AcaDepts/cl/slals/wp7/Huang.pdf
            and
            http://www.albany.edu/anthro/fac/broadwell/atomism.pdf
            and
            http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~semconf/wiltschko.doc
            and
            http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~jcamacho/publications/switch-reference.pdf
            and
            http://www.uncc.edu/colleges/arts_and_sciences/language/secol/abstract
            s/walker.htm
            all have examples and discussions of switch-reference systems, though
            I don't know which ones are better for the purposes of illustrating
            my question. (Or for that matter, whether any of them contains the
            best available answer; if one of them does, either "the best
            available answer" is pretty hard to understand, is not complete yet,
            or takes an awfully long time to read --- probably all three.)

            Don't look at all of them if you don't have the time.

            -----

            I hope somebody has fun with this.

            Thank you.

            Tom H.C. in MI
          • Rik Roots
            On Friday 01 Jul 2005 01:49, Tom Chappell wrote: ... For Gevey: On the dependent clauses bit, if the subject of the dependent clause is the same as the
            Message 5 of 10 , Jul 1 3:49 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              On Friday 01 Jul 2005 01:49, Tom Chappell wrote:
              <snip>

              > [OTHER PEOPLE'S CONLANGS]
              > Does anyone have an example of a ConLang they think would be particularly
              > good here?
              >
              For Gevey:

              On the dependent clauses bit, if the subject of the dependent clause is the
              same as the subject in the main clause then the dependent clause is happy to
              drop its subject and mark that it has done so both on the linking conjunction
              and on the dependent clause verb (well, I like redundancy).

              ce roub let strimace mizelh - we were running home
              ye tuusehrh glueface mizelh - we saw the dog.
              loifem ye tuusehrh glueface - the men saw the dog.

              We were running home when the men saw the dog.
              Ce roub let strimace mizelh retas loifem ye tuusehrh glueface.

              We were running home when we saw the dog.
              Ce roub let strimace mizelh retase ye tuusehrh gluefoce.

              http://www.kalieda.org/gevey/conj.html

              On relative clauses, Gevey has a system of relative conjunctions sort of
              inspired by switch-case systems - these allow the relative clause to follow
              the main clause rather than embed itself in the clause.

              main clause:
              Jone ye loif gluefase ïsta'deefsubz - John sees the man in the field

              relative clause:
              loife yuu pouzuul primase ta'tuusrheks - The man gives a stick to the dog

              concatenated sentence:
              Jone ye loif gluefase ïsta'deefsubz zhek yuu pouzuul ë primalta ta'tuusrheks
              óc - John sees the man giving a stick to the dog in the field

              (or alternatively:
              Jone ye loif gluefase ïsta'deefsubz zhekteh yuu pouzuul primase ta'tuusrheks -
              though Gevey grammarians will pull their hair out at such a bastardisation of
              the language).

              http://www.kalieda.org/gevey/relate.html

              > Tom H.C. in MI
              >
              Rik

              More on Gevey at: http://www.kalieda.org/gevey
            • Tim May
              Tom Chappell wrote at 2005-06-30 17:49:29 (-0700) ... I think the use of long-range reflexives in e.g. Eskimo-Aleut languages might qualify (or at least
              Message 6 of 10 , Jul 2 7:23 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                Tom Chappell wrote at 2005-06-30 17:49:29 (-0700)

                > [WHAT ABOUT A MAIN AND A SUBORDINATE CLAUSE?]
                > So far the examples I've given have either been co-ordinate clauses
                > or what the Role-and-Reference Grammarians call "co-subordinate"
                > clauses.
                >
                > But there's no reason I know of to doubt that some natlang out
                > there does something similar for marking the common arguments
                > between a main clause and its subordinate clause.
                >
                > Who knows one?

                I think the use of long-range reflexives in e.g. Eskimo-Aleut
                languages might qualify (or at least interest you as a related topic).

                Here's the section from Mithun's _The Languages of Native North
                America_ on the subject - I think I've posted it before, but I can't
                find it in the archives. Fortunately I had a copy saved for other
                reasons, so I didn't have to type it out again:

                | 2.1.2 Long-distance coreference and empathy
                |
                | Reflexive constructions, which mark coreference between the subject
                | and another argument of clauses, appear throughout North America, as
                | elsewhere: Mohawk _wa'k*atát*ken_ 'I saw *myself*'. Some languages
                | also contain devices for specifying coreference over longer stretches
                | of speech, termed variously fourth persons, long-distance reflexives,
                | coreferential third persons, logophoric pronouns, and more. Examples
                | of such structures can be seen in languages of the Eskimo-Aleut
                | family.
                |
                | In Central Alaskan Yup'ik, as in related languages, all verbs contain
                | pronominal suffixes referring to their core arguments, one for
                | intransitives and two for transitives. Posessed nouns contain
                | suffixes referring to the possessor and the possession.
                |
                | (10) YUP'IK PRONOMINAL SUFFIXES Elizabeth Ali, speaker
                | paqeta*nka* ila*nka*
                | paqete-a-*nka* ila-*nka*
                | visit-INDICATIVE-*1SINGULAR/3PLURAL* relative-*1SINGULAR/3PLURAL*
                | '*I* visited *them*' '*my* relative*s*'
                |
                | The pronominal suffixes always appear on verbs, whether or not
                | independent nouns appear in the sentence as well. The verb and noun
                | in (10), for example, could be combined into a sentence. Gender is
                | not distinguished in Yup'ik, so the same pronominal forms are used for
                | males, females and objects. There are two different third person
                | categories however, one basic and one for arguments coreferent with
                | the subject of the matrix clause.
                |
                | (11) YUP'IK COREFERENTIAL THIRD PERSON Elizabeth Ali, speaker
                | Tuai-llu-gguq tauna tutgara'urluq,
                | tuai=llu=gguq tauna tutgar-'urlur
                | so=too=HEARSAY that grandchild-dear
                | 'And so that dear grandchild,
                |
                | apa'urlu*ni* kenekenga*miu*
                | apa-'urlur-*ni* keneke-nga-*miu*
                | grandfather-dear-*3R.SG*/3SG love-CONSEQUENTIAL-*3R.SG*/3SG
                | because she (*herself*) loved her (*own*) grandfather,
                |
                | neqkanek assilrianek,
                | neqkaq-nek assir-lria-nek
                | prepared.food-ABLATIVE.PL good-NM-ABLATIVE.PL
                | paiveskii.
                | paivte-ke-ii
                | put.out-PARTICIPIAL.TR-3SG/3PL
                | she was putting out good foods [on his plate].
                |
                | The subject of the main clause in (11) is the grandchild. She is
                | referred to by a basic third person pronoun in the main verb
                | _paivesk*ii*_ '*she* put them out'. In the embedded clause, 'because
                | *she* loved her grandfather', she is referred to by the coreferential
                | pronoun because the subject of the subordinate clause is the same as
                | that of the main clause. The coreferential pronoun appears in '*her*
                | grandfather' as well, indicating that the possessor of the grandfather
                | is the same individual as the subject of the clause in which it
                | occurs: 'she_i loved her_i grandfather'. (Basic reflexives are
                | expressed in a different way in Yup'ik.
              • Patrick Littell
                ... I think you can also find serial verbs in an ergative pattern in, hmm, Oceanic I think. In which the second verb s subject is the first s object. I can try
                Message 7 of 10 , Jul 2 9:10 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  On 6/30/05, Tom Chappell <tomhchappell@...> wrote:
                  Hello, anyone who feels like answering.
                  Occasionally two different clauses share some of their arguments.
                  Some languages have a way of indicating this, and take advantage of it.
                  [MOTIVATING EXAMPLES]
                  [SERIAL VERBS]
                  For example, in serial-verb languages, if a series of verbs have all of the same arguments in all of the same grammatical roles and relations, the sentence may consist of a complete clause followed by the rest of the verbs in sequence.
                  In such cases, there is no need to inflect any verb but either the first verb or the last verb for the person, number, or gender of its core arguments -- on the other verbs it is necessary only to mark either that it has exactly the same arguments as the verb before it, or that it has exactly the same arguments as the verb after it.
                  Frequently, also, either only the first or only the last verb of the sequence is fully inflected for tense, mood, and aspect.

                  I think you can also find serial verbs in an ergative pattern in, hmm, Oceanic I think.  In which the second verb's subject is the first's object.  I can try to find a reference, if you wish.  I don't know whether these can be chained.

                  You get subsequent stative verbs used as adverbs in Kwaio and related tongues, I believe.  I don't know if it can be reconstructed for Proto-Oceanic but it's a not uncommon pattern in its descendents.

                  [WA-CONSECUTIVES]
                  There are also languages, such as, if I remember what I was told, Classical Hebrew and Medieval Welsh, which have, in narrative, a "consecutive" device as follows.  A sentence is written, and then, as long as the subject and the tense stays the same and no negative is encountered, a series of verb-phrases is piled on with "ands"; these are written by means of de-verbal nouns (gerunds or infinitives or supines) in Welsh, iirc.

                  The pattern in Mayan languages, at least in certain discourse genres, tends to be that once a noun phrase is presented as the topic, it's the understood subject until another topic is introduced.  There's a strong discourse rule that avoids full transitive sentences -- ones with a full S and a full O.  (This is quite common, of course, in speech across languages, but it's much stronger in Mayan than any other language group I've seen.)  So you get a big chain of VS VO VO VO VS VO etc. sentences, with the subject expressed in verb agreement.  (The verb agreement is often rather ambiguous -- in a story, for example, everything'll be 3rd person anyway -- so it's more like the above pattern than it at first seems.)

                  So you get "Existed JPeedroj-TOP.  He-went to Flores.  He-saw JJwan-TOP.  He-said etc...", where the "he/she/it" marker in sentences 2 and 3 mean JPeedroj, and the one in 4 means JJwan.  Okay, this story is stupid, but lots of short clauses like this is the model of Mayan eloquence, rather than the long sentences of English or Latin eloquence.  And the more repetition, the better.  (There's also the discourse pattern, not uncommon in American Indian languages, in which the listener repeats the last thing said, to indicate that they're listening and to urge the speaker to continue.  It's like "uh-huh" and nodding.)

                  Different in execution, of course, but it feels similar to me.

                  Is it coincidental that all three are verb-initial?  I recall reading that serial verbs aren't really found outside the SVO world, but I can't think of a reason why this would be.  (For example, some SVO Mon-Khmer languages developed it, and the non-SVO ones didn't.)

                  --
                  Patrick Littell
                  PHIL205: MWF 2:00-3:00, M 6:00-9:00
                  Voice Mail: ext 744
                  Spring 05 Office Hours: M 3:00-6:00
                • Jeffrey Jones
                  ... Thanks for recopying. Just thought I d mention that I m doing something like this in Noimi. I mentioned coreferential marking in a recent post but didn t
                  Message 8 of 10 , Jul 3 9:42 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 15:23:13 +0100, Tim May <butsuri@...> wrote:

                    >Tom Chappell wrote at 2005-06-30 17:49:29 (-0700)
                    >
                    > > [WHAT ABOUT A MAIN AND A SUBORDINATE CLAUSE?]
                    > > So far the examples I've given have either been co-ordinate clauses
                    > > or what the Role-and-Reference Grammarians call "co-subordinate"
                    > > clauses.
                    > >
                    > > But there's no reason I know of to doubt that some natlang out
                    > > there does something similar for marking the common arguments
                    > > between a main clause and its subordinate clause.
                    > >
                    > > Who knows one?
                    >
                    >I think the use of long-range reflexives in e.g. Eskimo-Aleut
                    >languages might qualify (or at least interest you as a related topic).
                    >
                    >Here's the section from Mithun's _The Languages of Native North
                    >America_ on the subject - I think I've posted it before, but I can't
                    >find it in the archives. Fortunately I had a copy saved for other
                    >reasons, so I didn't have to type it out again:
                    >
                    >| 2.1.2 Long-distance coreference and empathy
                    >|
                    >| Reflexive constructions, which mark coreference between the subject
                    >| and another argument of clauses, appear throughout North America, as
                    >| elsewhere: Mohawk _wa'k*atát*ken_ 'I saw *myself*'. Some languages
                    >| also contain devices for specifying coreference over longer stretches
                    >| of speech, termed variously fourth persons, long-distance reflexives,
                    >| coreferential third persons, logophoric pronouns, and more. Examples
                    >| of such structures can be seen in languages of the Eskimo-Aleut
                    >| family.
                    >|
                    >| In Central Alaskan Yup'ik, as in related languages, all verbs contain
                    >| pronominal suffixes referring to their core arguments, one for
                    >| intransitives and two for transitives. Posessed nouns contain
                    >| suffixes referring to the possessor and the possession.
                    >|
                    >| (10) YUP'IK PRONOMINAL SUFFIXES Elizabeth Ali, speaker
                    >| paqeta*nka* ila*nka*
                    >| paqete-a-*nka* ila-*nka*
                    >| visit-INDICATIVE-*1SINGULAR/3PLURAL* relative-*1SINGULAR/3PLURAL*
                    >| '*I* visited *them*' '*my* relative*s*'
                    >|
                    >| The pronominal suffixes always appear on verbs, whether or not
                    >| independent nouns appear in the sentence as well. The verb and noun
                    >| in (10), for example, could be combined into a sentence. Gender is
                    >| not distinguished in Yup'ik, so the same pronominal forms are used for
                    >| males, females and objects. There are two different third person
                    >| categories however, one basic and one for arguments coreferent with
                    >| the subject of the matrix clause.
                    >|
                    >| (11) YUP'IK COREFERENTIAL THIRD PERSON Elizabeth Ali, speaker
                    >| Tuai-llu-gguq tauna tutgara'urluq,
                    >| tuai=llu=gguq tauna tutgar-'urlur
                    >| so=too=HEARSAY that grandchild-dear
                    >| 'And so that dear grandchild,
                    >|
                    >| apa'urlu*ni* kenekenga*miu*
                    >| apa-'urlur-*ni* keneke-nga-*miu*
                    >| grandfather-dear-*3R.SG*/3SG love-CONSEQUENTIAL-*3R.SG*/3SG
                    >| because she (*herself*) loved her (*own*) grandfather,
                    >|
                    >| neqkanek assilrianek,
                    >| neqkaq-nek assir-lria-nek
                    >| prepared.food-ABLATIVE.PL good-NM-ABLATIVE.PL
                    >| paiveskii.
                    >| paivte-ke-ii
                    >| put.out-PARTICIPIAL.TR-3SG/3PL
                    >| she was putting out good foods [on his plate].
                    >|
                    >| The subject of the main clause in (11) is the grandchild. She is
                    >| referred to by a basic third person pronoun in the main verb
                    >| _paivesk*ii*_ '*she* put them out'. In the embedded clause, 'because
                    >| *she* loved her grandfather', she is referred to by the coreferential
                    >| pronoun because the subject of the subordinate clause is the same as
                    >| that of the main clause. The coreferential pronoun appears in '*her*
                    >| grandfather' as well, indicating that the possessor of the grandfather
                    >| is the same individual as the subject of the clause in which it
                    >| occurs: 'she_i loved her_i grandfather'. (Basic reflexives are
                    >| expressed in a different way in Yup'ik.
                    >=========================================================================

                    Thanks for recopying.
                    Just thought I'd mention that I'm doing something like this in Noimi. I
                    mentioned coreferential marking in a recent post but didn't elaborate.

                    Jeff

                    --
                    "Nyarlathotep ... the crawling chaos ... I am the last ... I will tell the
                    audient void .." -- H.P. Lovecraft
                  • David J. Peterson
                    Roger wrote:
                    Message 9 of 10 , Jul 6 1:08 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Roger wrote:
                      <<
                      Another distinction between the two sentences-- which I don't see
                      mentioned-- is that (1a) has indefinite object; (2a) definite.
                      >>

                      You know, I never noticed that. One thing is that this was intended
                      to be a talk for undergraduates, so he may have left out any mention
                      of this on purpose. Had I noticed, I would've asked, but I didn't--
                      which
                      is odd, since in the pragmatics class I was taking that quarter, all we
                      talked about was differences in definiteness, etc. as they related to
                      discourse status. And just like indefinites are restricted in their
                      distribution in English, maybe that's why you get the strict word
                      order with the (1a) example, which has an indefinite object.

                      (Example from English: ??A bird is big. It's grammatical, to be
                      sure, but it sounds just awful.)

                      This is the example I'm referring to:
                      > (1)
                      > (a) Ku'ita te ana (na iaku). /1sg.-see ACC. child (NOM. I)/ "I saw a
                      > child."
                      > (b) *Ku'ita na iaku te ana. For same. [word order = VOS]

                      Anyway, Roger, if after you've looked over the handout and the paper
                      you want to give any notes on what you think, or compare them to
                      other nat (or con) langs, I'm sure it would be much appreciated. :)

                      Incidentally, check it out: Mark has conlanged in the past! And I
                      had no idea while he was here.

                      http://courses.nus.edu.sg/course/ellmd/weblinks.html

                      It's like the second main paragraph on his page about linguistics,
                      which is interesting, given all the work he's done, and that he
                      apparently doesn't conlang anymore. Unfortunately, the link to
                      his conlang is broken.

                      -David
                      *******************************************************************
                      "A male love inevivi i'ala'i oku i ue pokulu'ume o heki a."
                      "No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn."

                      -Jim Morrison

                      http://dedalvs.free.fr/
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.