"Make these work together" game.

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
basilius
MVP
MVP
Posts: 244
Joined: Thu 27 Jan 2011, 18:22

Re: "Make these work together" game.

Post by basilius » Tue 25 Jun 2013, 21:03

Click wrote:That's precisely why I asked. [;)]
Nevertheless, an elaboration is very welcome!
DesEsseintes wrote:This is a brief outline for a solution to Basilius's latest challenge. <...>
Cool. This one looks most naturalistic, so far.

However,
Spoiler:
- strictly speaking, "word order alone" does not work here, demanding a support from context and probably phrasal stress;
- I suspect that "stress patterns" &like will be (naturally) more sensitive to discourse factors than to syntactic structures, at any rate in a language so heavily relying on topic-comment dichotomy... Or maybe not, but then, again, this bit is particularly worthy of elaboration...

Keenir wrote: then why don't you just show us, and stop insisting we read your mind? the point of a game is fun, is to enjoy ourselves and enjoy stretching our minds.
Hey, but this is no exam... and I thought disclosing some solutions would spoil the fun for others?

Seeing free word order systems proposed by Click, Shemtov and DesEsseintes, with either very economical use of morphology or essentially none, I'm already having fun, and I invite you to join it :)

Also... I've mentioned that I can think of at least three types of solutions for my "challenge"; and in fact all the three are based on rather straightforward natlang analogs. The analogs come from languages that aren't particularly exotic. I hope that people who know languages which I haven't dealt with may point to especially curious solutions, and I don't want to precipitate this possibility in particular.
basilius
MVP
MVP
Posts: 244
Joined: Thu 27 Jan 2011, 18:22

Re: "Make these work together" game.

Post by basilius » Tue 25 Jun 2013, 21:08

...but for those who'd prefer to see something spoiled...
Spoiler:
My "challenge" does not say that 'The cat saw the mouse' must translate to a phrase of three words.
;)
User avatar
Click
darkness
darkness
Posts: 3328
Joined: Sat 21 Jan 2012, 12:17

Re: "Make these work together" game.

Post by Click » Thu 27 Jun 2013, 15:13

basilius wrote:
Click wrote:That's precisely why I asked. [;)]
Nevertheless, an elaboration is very welcome!
Here comes the elaboration!
Spoiler:
The basic word order is VSO, but VOS is also permitted.

Yɔni mɑ kɑ́ṭ.
see cat mouse

Yɔni kɑ́t mɑ.
see mouse cat

The topic is fronted before the verb.

Mɑ yɔni kɑ́ṭ.
cat see mouse

Kɑ́ṭ yɔni mɑ.
mouse see cat

The subject and the object can both be fronted to emphasize the focus. The focus in that kind of construction comes first, too.

Mɑ kɑ́ṭ yɔni.
cat mouse see

Kɑ́ṭ mɑ yɔni.
mouse cat see

The subject is separated from the rest of the clause by minor prosodic (foot) breaks.
Here's an another solution, that popped in my head while I was writing down the above text.
Spoiler:
The basic word order is VSO, but VOS is also permitted.
Yɔni mɑ kɑ́ṭ.
see cat mouse

Yɔniru mɑ kɑ́t.
see-CLF mouse cat

The topic is fronted before the verb.

Mɑ yɔni kɑ́ṭ.
cat see mouse

Kɑ́ṭ yɔniru mɑ.
mouse see-CLF cat

The subject and the object can both be fronted to emphasize the focus. The focus in that kind of construction comes first, too.

Mɑ kɑ́ṭ yɔni.
cat mouse see

Kɑ́ṭ mɑ yɔniru.
mouse cat see-CLF

See that CLF in some glosses? Yes, that's a classifier suffix for animals.
The classifier suffixes are appended to the verb if the object comes before the subject. The suffix agrees with the object in class (i.e., animal objects take the animal classifier etc.)
Last edited by Click on Wed 24 Jul 2013, 21:28, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
eldin raigmore
fire
fire
Posts: 5684
Joined: Sat 14 Aug 2010, 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: "Make these work together" game.

Post by eldin raigmore » Thu 27 Jun 2013, 16:52

That one was a toughy. I couldn't reconcile "word-order is free" with "word-order alone determines which is agent and which is patient".
Click, I think it's your turn to post a challenge; want to?
Or is it someone else's turn? Or do you want someone else to post the next challenge?
User avatar
Xing
MVP
MVP
Posts: 5309
Joined: Sun 22 Aug 2010, 17:46

Re: "Make these work together" game.

Post by Xing » Thu 27 Jun 2013, 18:48

eldin raigmore wrote:That one was a toughy. I couldn't reconcile "word-order is free" with "word-order alone determines which is agent and which is patient".
[+1]

It depends on how strictly one interprets the restrictions. With the most literal interpretation, I suggest the challenge is impossible. (Since I regard it as the very definition of "free word-order", that word-order is not determined by which constituent is the subject/agent, and patient/agent...)

One obvious solution would be to have one unmarked word-order - say SVO (AVP) - but also allow other word-orders, if context made it clear which is the subject/agent and which is the object/patient. Such changes in word-order might be marked by intonation or prosody - though sometimes perhaps context alone could determine which one is the subject. This solution would perhaps violate the second restriction - at least given it's most rigid interpretation.

Let's look at the restrictions, in turn, and see what loopholes we can find.
basilius wrote:(1) Word order in a transitive clause like The cat saw the mouse should be free.

This means that ideally, 'cat', 'mouse' and 'see' must allow for all the six combinatorically available orderings. However, simple and elegant solutions partly restricting the placement of the verb are also welcome.
Does word-order refer to the ordering of subject, object and verb? Or between agent, patient and verb? Suppose that the freedom of word-order applies to syntactic roles - then one could still have marking for semantic roles - like agent and patient. [:D]

(2) In the abovesaid type of clauses, word order alone must make it clear who saw whom.

This means that cases, adpositions, voices, all types of agreement, lexical animacy hierarchies, syntactically conditioned sandhi and the like should be irrelevant. Also, the dependency tree should remain the same at least for 'cat' and 'mouse' (not to mention that the clause must remain one clause; resorting to clefts is considered cheating)
Does word-order refer to the ordering of subject/agent, verb and object/patient? Or could it involve other components of a sentence? Say, the placement of adjectives, adverbs, or various particles? For example, if a clause has an adverb - this adverb must be placed adjacent to the object. The placement of the subject and verb could still be free...
User avatar
PTSnoop
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed 01 May 2013, 23:07

Re: "Make these work together" game.

Post by PTSnoop » Thu 27 Jun 2013, 19:30

"This means that cases, adpositions, voices, all types of agreement, lexical animacy hierarchies, syntactically conditioned sandhi and the like should be irrelevant."

What about gender, or verb classes?

ta?e - "cat" m.
vehiga - "mouse" f.
indah - "see" m=agent
devih - "see" f=agent

indah ta?e vehiga
indah vehiga ta?e
ta?e indah vehiga
ta?e vehiga indah
vehiga ta?e indah
vehiga indah ta?e
- "the cat sees the mouse"

devih ta?e vehiga
devih vehiga ta?e
ta?e devih vehiga
ta?e vehiga devih
vehiga ta?e devih
vehiga devih ta?e
- "the mouse sees the cat"

To avoid confusing m->m or f->f sentences, you'd also have plenty of nouns with the same meaning but different gender (and lots of genders). plus maybe some proximate-obviate determiners to disambiguate things.

beo - "cat" f.

ta?e indah beo vara
"the cat sees that other cat"

Feels unnatural, in my opinion, but still interesting. And still complies with the letter of the challenge, I think.
basilius
MVP
MVP
Posts: 244
Joined: Thu 27 Jan 2011, 18:22

Re: "Make these work together" game.

Post by basilius » Thu 27 Jun 2013, 20:44

eldin raigmore wrote:That one was a toughy. I couldn't reconcile "word-order is free" with "word-order alone determines which is agent and which is patient".
Xing wrote:With the most literal interpretation, I suggest the challenge is impossible. (Since I regard it as the very definition of "free word-order", that word-order is not determined by which constituent is the subject/agent, and patient/agent...)
I am really sorry, guys. While formulating my challenge, I was trying hard *not* to give hints to the possibility pointed to in my last spoiler:
basilius wrote:My "challenge" does not say that 'The cat saw the mouse' must translate to a phrase of three words.
And you are right, I don't think my challenge (in its very literal reading) can be solved without adding one or more syntactic positions to the "S, V, O" of my test sentence. (And even if you know where the solutions are to be looked for, there's a rather non-trivial task of complying with all the constraints neatly, so the extra elements can't be interpreted as camouflaged adpositions, agreement markers, etc.).

I feel guilty :(

(BTW, while toying with the challenge myself, I formulated a couple nice solutions I hadn't thought of; they'll require a longish post... if there is interest.)

On the other hand, I am impressed by all the diverse attempts at squeezing maximum out of all the diverse alternative solutions; you are creative folks, guys!

(And your proposals deserve some extensive comments, properly; this will require more time than I have right now, so maybe later...)

eldin raigmore wrote:Click, I think it's your turn to post a challenge; want to?
Or is it someone else's turn? Or do you want someone else to post the next challenge?
I suggest that whenever a challenge isn't solved in, say, a couple days, it should be declared "pending" (or something). That is, new challenges are welcome, while discussing the "pending" one (also, requesting clarifications from its author, etc.) may continue at a slower pace.

This would have been the right thing to do with my two challenges, as I realize.
Sumelic
greek
greek
Posts: 704
Joined: Tue 18 Jun 2013, 22:01

Re: "Make these work together" game.

Post by Sumelic » Mon 01 Jul 2013, 22:30

well, Basilius posted a hint towards a solution of this kind, but nobody seems to have made an actual realization of it yet, so here's my sketch of a language that would fulfill these criteria.

This system uses tense/aspect particles that are required in a clause (essentially adding a fourth word to the trio of subject, object and verb), and that are put directly adjacent to the subject noun phrase on the side of the verb.
Definite nouns come before the verb, indefinite ones after. There is only one voice, but different orderings of nouns can correspond to voice distinctions in English.


Pnǫko = mouse
Budasi = cat
Lo = past particle
Vi = see

Here’s all the possible orderings:

Pnǫko lo budasi vi. The mouse saw the cat.
Pnǫko lo vi budasi. The mouse saw a cat.
Budasi pnǫko lo vi. The cat was seen by the mouse.
Budasi vi lo pnǫko. The cat was seen by a mouse.
Vi lo pnǫko budasi. A mouse saw a cat.
Vi budasi lo pnǫko. A cat was seen by a mouse.

Pnǫko budasi lo vi. The mouse was seen by the cat.
Pnǫko vi lo budasi. The mouse was seen by a cat.
Budasi lo pnǫko vi. The cat saw the mouse.
Budasi lo vi pnǫko. The cat saw a mouse.
Vi pnǫko lo budasi. A mouse was seen by a cat.
Vi lo budasi pnǫko. A cat saw a mouse.

I'm not sure how naturalistic this is, but it gets the job done.
basilius
MVP
MVP
Posts: 244
Joined: Thu 27 Jan 2011, 18:22

Re: "Make these work together" game.

Post by basilius » Tue 02 Jul 2013, 19:46

Sumelic wrote:I'm not sure how naturalistic this is, but it gets the job done.
Yes, and congrats :)

As for "naturalistic"...
<...> tense/aspect particles <...> put directly adjacent to the subject noun phrase on the side of the verb.
Do you have a natlang precedent for such clitic placement?

Yes, this is hardcore nitpicking ;)

...But also an invitation to discuss some potentially difficult subjects...

Since I've stated a couple times that my own solutions are based on rather direct natlang precedents, I think I should share something, too.

The first group of solutions tries to do something with the upper end of the dependency tree, and the natlang precedent it relies upon is English.
Spoiler:
In English, interrogative sentences allow for putting any type of dependent (the wh-word) to the pre-verbal position, without creating a syntactic ambiguity (cf. What did the cat see? or When did the cat see the mouse?). This depends on the presence of an auxiliary verb which is mandatory in English questions.

In older historical stages of English, putting an arbitrary dependent to pre-verbal position was also possible in declarative sentences, and the ordering of components within certain dependents (e. g. embedded predicates: infinitive phrases etc.) was freer. On the other hand, there was an extra restriction on the material in pre-verbal position: it must have been single constituent (the V2 constraint; sentences like Yesterday I saw... were disallowed).

(1a) This solution allows for fronting one arbitrary constituent; in doing so, it allows for splitting an embeddded predicate phrase (and extracting either its head or its internal dependent); otherwise the word order within an embedded predicate phrase is fixed, N(V)-O.

The auxiliary is mandatory (in declarative sentences and otherwise). The ordering of dependents when they follow the auxiliary=finite verb is fixed:

(XP) Vaux S N(V) O

"Vaux" is auxiliary verb; N(V) is a non-finite form (infinitive in our examples) of the lexical verb; "XP" is the pre-verbal position which can be filled with any single dependent by extracting it from its post-verbal position.

(This use of "XP", and the idea that something gets moved to it from a generation position, is a Chomskyite thing; being an anti-Chomskyite, I'd say that the operations are in fact ordered the other way round, but that would demand lengthy explanations, defining some terms in process, etc.)

Or, in an ad hoc Anglic conlang:

*(XP) dyd the cat see the mouss.

The asterisk means that the above is a generativist underlying structure that cannot be used as a valid sentence as such. In the actual sentences, various dependents are put to the XP.

The subject:

The cat dyd see the mouss.

The object:

The mouss dyd the cat see.

The (infinitive of the) lexical verb:

See dyd the cat the mouss.

(If your favorite theory says that extracting the head of an embedded predicate phrase while leaving its dependents in situ is problematic, be informed that that theory is empirically wrong.)

Besides, N(V) + O form a valid constituent (infinitive phrase) and can be extracted as a whole:

See the mouss dyd the cat.

To sum up, this solution permits the following word orders (with "V" equated to "N(V)" rather than Vaux, since this seems to make more sense in terms of discourse functions):

SVO: The cat dyd see the mouss.
OSV: The mouss dyd the cat see.
VSO: See dyd the cat the mouss.
VOS: See the mouss dyd the cat.

(All translating to 'The cat saw the mouse', partly with a difference in phrasal stress, some allowing for paraphrases like 'As for the mouse, the cat saw it' &like.)

This solution is therefore partial: it allows for either fronting or postponing of either S or O, and thus for arbitrary mutual ordering of S an O, but not for all the six combinatorically possible orderings of S, V, O.

-----

(1b) Another possible solution, also V2 with an obligatory auxiliary, differs in disallowing the splitting of embedded predicate phrase but permitting a free ordering inside it, i. e. both the mouss see and see the mouss are valid infinitive phrases.

The mechanics of fronting an arbitrary constituent is essentially the same.

The subject, with two orderings inside the infinitive phrase:

The cat dyd see the mouss.
The cat dyd the mouss see.

The infinitive phrase:

See the mouss dyd the cat.
The mouss see dyd the cat.

The whole set of available orderings is, thus:

SVO: The cat dyd see the mouss.
SOV: The cat dyd the mouss see.
VOS: See the mouss dyd the cat.
OVS: The mouss see dyd the cat.

This solution is partial, too.

Unfortunately, solutions (1a) and (1b) (i. e. free splitting of infinitive phrases and free ordering inside infinitive phrases) cannot be combined, for this would make sentences like The cat dyd the mouss see ambiguous. I haven't invented a natural way to exclude one of the two possible readings, S-Vaux-O-N(V) and O-Vaux-S-N(V).

Such ambiguity is very natural, but it violates the conditions of my challenge.
A couple solutions affecting the lower end of dependency trees, more similar to Sumelic's proposal, may offer additional options, which I'll present in a next message.
Sumelic
greek
greek
Posts: 704
Joined: Tue 18 Jun 2013, 22:01

Re: "Make these work together" game.

Post by Sumelic » Wed 03 Jul 2013, 00:25

I was thinking of the particle as an auxiliary, similar to your examples. It always ends up next to the subject in my examples because its function is basically to separate the subject and predicate, but non-core arguments of the verb would be able to come between the subject and particl.

The basic structure of a clause is therefore SpP or PpS with S being the subject, P being the predicate and a being the particle or auxiliary. The predicate can additionally be either VO or OV. This allows SaOV, SaVO, VOaS and OVaS.

From these positions, the object can be moved around, but the subject and verb are fixed.

In the OSaV sentences, the object is fronted, but the particle still separates the subject from the verb; which could I supposed reflect an underlying structure of SaOV for these, with the object then fronted for emphasis.

VaSO is a bit weird because it involves postposing(backing?) the object from VOaS, possibly for end-focus or something like that.
basilius
MVP
MVP
Posts: 244
Joined: Thu 27 Jan 2011, 18:22

Re: "Make these work together" game.

Post by basilius » Wed 03 Jul 2013, 02:16

Sumelic wrote:I was thinking of the particle as an auxiliary, similar to your examples.

Oh, I see. I thought it was more like an adverbial (one of the extra examples I promised to post will explore this option).

OK, let's see if I understood your system correctly.

{O; V} can be split; {a; S} cannot be split. Looks possible.

"a" must be put between S and V. Looks natural, for "a" is their common head (and is a clitic).

{O; V} is a constituent; internal ordering (when it's not split) is free. Very natural.

O, when split from V, can be moved to either initial or final position. Redundant and natural.

So we have:

Expanded S-"a"-V:

SaVO, SaOV, OSaV

Expanded V-"a"-S:

VOaS, OVaS, VaSO

So,

N-V-N = S-V-O: SaVO
N-V-N = O-V-S: OVaS

N-N-V = S-O-V: SaOV
N-N-V = O-S-V: OSaV

V-N-N = V-S-O: VaSO
V-N-N = V-O-S: VOaS

Correct?
User avatar
eldin raigmore
fire
fire
Posts: 5684
Joined: Sat 14 Aug 2010, 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: "Make these work together" game.

Post by eldin raigmore » Wed 03 Jul 2013, 19:36

I like all the posts made in July 2013 so far. [B)]
basilius
MVP
MVP
Posts: 244
Joined: Thu 27 Jan 2011, 18:22

Re: "Make these work together" game.

Post by basilius » Mon 08 Jul 2013, 12:58

eldin: :)
I wrote:I thought it was more like an adverbial (one of the extra examples I promised to post will explore this option).
So....
Spoiler:
(2) Now let's consider a solution using an adverb as the extra word whose position will indicate the roles of S and O.

The natlang precedents I am going to start off this time belong to Continental Scandinavian languages.

These languages are V2 and permit an arbitrary constituent to be put to the pre-verbal position. However, their word order is also sensitive to the categories S and O, which are ordered differently within the post-verbal field. In particular, S and O are ordered differently relative to the so-called sentential adverbs. For example, in Danish:

Manden slog ikke drengen.
'The man didn't beat the boy'.
Pseudo-gloss: Man-the beat.PAST not boy-the

Manden slog drengen ikke.
'The boy didn't beat the man' (with a possible shade like 'As for the man, the boy didn't beat him')
Pseudo-gloss: Man-the beat.PAST boy-the not

In these Danish examples, ikke 'not' behaves like a sentential adverb or adverbial clitic; it's not unique since there are other adverbs producing the same effect (e. g. jo, roughly 'indeed').

The constraints seen in the examples above are the following: (1) S cannot normally be separated from the finite verb by another word, including a sentential adverb, and (2) a sentential adverb cannot be separated from the finite verb by anything but S (and/or another sentential adverb).

A fictional language typologically similar and genetically related to Scandinavian, e. g. another ad hoc Anglic conlang, might plausibly use this technique to disambiguate between S and O.

A reliable disambiguation would require mandatory filling of the sentential adverb slot. I don't know of any natlang which would do exactly that (i. e. have a position for adverbs which cannot be left empty; cf. the rather common obligatory use of subjects and/or direct objects), and I would be grateful for examples if they exist. Such mandatory use of adverbs seems possible if the function of those adverbs is somehow grammaticalized. Grammaticalization of adverbs per se is certainly attested, yet mandatory use of certain types of adverbs remains the questionable part of this solution.

In the Anglic conlang sketched here, sentential adverbs are mandatory in declarative sentences. Clauses whose English translations contain no adverbs typically have one of the following three:

* zo, indicating that the content of the clause naturally follows from previous events, or can be naturally inferred from what has been already said;

* thogh, showing that the clause somehow contradicts to what has been said before, or presents an unexpected outcome of previous events;

* nou, marking a switch of topic, and also used in utterances produced "out of the blue".

The examples below use thogh.

Sentential adverbs are open class of words also conveying various other meanings (e. g. 'also', 'perhaps', 'indeed', 'not', 'hardly' etc.); using more than one such adverbs in one clause is perfectly legal, but leaving the slot empty is ungrammatical.

The word order is basically like in modern Danish:

(XP) V S AdvS O

The V2 constraint is observed, so anything put to the "XP" slot must be single constituent.

This produces the following translations for '(However,) the cat saw the mouse':

SVO: The cat saugh thogh the mouss.
VSO: Thogh saugh the cat the mouss.
OVS: The mouss saugh the cat thogh.

This is another partial solution to the challenge.

(1+2) The technique relying on obligatory sentential adverbs is perfectly compatible with obligatory auxiliary verbs. Interestingly, it also solves the problem with incompatibility of (1a) and (1b). The following are examples from a V2 language which uses sentential adverbs like in (2), allows for splitting infinitive phrases like (1a) and permits swapping within infinitive phrases like (1b).

SVO: The cat dyd thogh see the mouss.
SOV: The cat dyd thogh the mouss see.
OSV: The mouss dyd the cat thogh see.
VSO: See dyd the cat thogh the mouss.
VOS: See the mouss dyd the cat thogh.
OVS: The mouss see dyd the cat thogh.

'(However,) the cat saw the mouse'.

This solution is complete.

(1/2+) One might also find it interesting to experiment with (1)-(2) expanded by additional options like partial waiving of the V2 constraint and/or allowing some dependents to be postponed (i. e. put to the end of the clause); in an Anglic conlang both would originate from extraposition.

I also toyed a bit with a solution based on pronominal clitics (and clitic doubling), but it looked much more problematic in several respects.
Last edited by basilius on Mon 08 Jul 2013, 13:00, edited 1 time in total.
basilius
MVP
MVP
Posts: 244
Joined: Thu 27 Jan 2011, 18:22

Re: "Make these work together" game.

Post by basilius » Mon 08 Jul 2013, 12:59

Also, I think new challenges have been welcome for weeks now. Please :)
User avatar
eldin raigmore
fire
fire
Posts: 5684
Joined: Sat 14 Aug 2010, 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: "Make these work together" game.

Post by eldin raigmore » Mon 08 Jul 2013, 22:43

basilius wrote:Also, I think new challenges have been welcome for weeks now. Please :)
1. The language is ergative.
2. The language is dechticaetiative.
3. The language has "applicative voices".
User avatar
PTSnoop
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed 01 May 2013, 23:07

Re: "Make these work together" game.

Post by PTSnoop » Tue 09 Jul 2013, 10:53

eldin raigmore wrote:1. The language is ergative.
2. The language is dechticaetiative.
3. The language has "applicative voices".
I'm not sure I've properly got my head around dechticaetiativity or the applicative voice. But I'll give it a go, and hopefully I'll learn something in the process.

Some words:
Miárua (name) -> Miárua
rage -> kåprwhpåkə
pick up -> kaz
throw -> katwki
break -> cəhdə
window -> nedu
stone -> kir
policeman -> tri
give -> tuqi

Some affixes:
ERG -> mə-
DECH -> tnri-
LOC -> czeda-
ANTIPASS -> -ti
APPL -> -lri
3.ANIM -> qer-
3.INANIM -> hir-

Absolutive obligatory, unmarked, always comes before the verb.
Other cases marked with prefixes.
Verb-final, more emphasised arguments come later in the sentence.
The verb inflects for the number and animacy of the absolutive.
Verbs have lexical transitivity/ditransitivity.

Miárua qerkåprwhpåkə.
Miárua 3.ANIM-rage.
Miárua raged.

Məmiárua kir hirkaz.
ERG-Miárua stone 3.INANIM-pick.
Miárua picked up a stone.

Məmiárua tnrikir nedu hirkatwki.
ERG-Miárua DECH-stone window 3.INANIM-throw.
Miárua threw a stone at the window.

So far so ergative. In fact, let's throw in an antipassive as well.

(Czedakir) Miárua qerkatwkiti.
(LOC-stone) Miárua 3.ANIM-throw-ANTIPASS.
Miárua threw (and what she threw was a stone).

(Czedakir) tnrinedu Miárua qerkatwkiti.
(LOC-stone) DECH-window Miárua 3.ANIM-throw-ANTIPASS.
Miárua threw at the window (and what she threw was a stone).

So now for ditransitives, we have ways of gramatically focussing on the Subject, or on the Direct Object. What we don't really have yet is anything for ditransitives that'll let us focus on the Indirect Object:

*Tnrinedu Məmiárua kir qerkatwki.
DECH-window ERG-Miárua stone 3.INANIM-throw
It was the stone that Miarua threw at the window.
(But what this actually says is "Miárua threw the window at the stone").

*Məmiárua kir qerkatwi.
ERG-Miárua stone 3.INANIM-throw.
Miárua threw a stone.
(But again, we know "throw" is a ditransitive verb, so we still imagine the ommitted DECH argument here - Miárua's throwing things at stones again.)

So let's introduce an applicative voice, which promotes the DECH argument to ABS and pushes the current ABS into a locative.

Czedanedu Məmiárua kir hirkatwkilri.
LOC-window ERG-Miárua stone 3.INANIM-throw-APPL
It was a stone that Miárua threw at the window.

So now we can drop pretty much all the arguments and still make it perfectly clear what it is that we're trying to say.

Miárua qerkatwkiti.
Miárua 3.ANIM-throw-ANTIPASS.
Miárua threw (something at something).

Nedu hirkatwki.
window 3.INANIM-throw.
The window was thrown at (by someone throwing something).

Kir hirkatwkilri.
stone 3.INANIM-throw-APPL.
The stone was thrown (at something by someone).

And now, let's cram all the cases into one big applicative sentence for a causative construction.

Czedanedu Tnrimiárua məkåprwhpåkə kir hirkatwkilri.
LOC-window DECH-Miárua ERG-rage stone 3.INANIM-throw-APPL
Her rage made Miárua throw the stone at the window.
(or "rage used Miárua to throw the stone at the window").
User avatar
eldin raigmore
fire
fire
Posts: 5684
Joined: Sat 14 Aug 2010, 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: "Make these work together" game.

Post by eldin raigmore » Tue 09 Jul 2013, 19:13

Very good, IMO. [:)]
So of course I'm only going to point out the flaws. [:(]
PTSnoop wrote:Məmiárua tnrikir nedu hirkatwki.
ERG-Miárua DECH-stone window 3.INANIM-throw.
Miárua threw a stone at the window.
Actually, "Miárua threw a stone to the window".
"At the window" would be allative, a kind of locative.
You want a recipient, rather than a target.

PTSnoop wrote:.... more neat stuff not quoted in order to save space ....
Neat! [B)]

PTSnoop wrote:*Tnrinedu Məmiárua kir qerkatwki.
DECH-window ERG-Miárua stone 3.INANIM-throw
It was the stone that Miarua threw at the window.
(But what this actually says is "Miárua threw the window at the stone").
Either interpretation is bad news for the window.

PTSnoop wrote:So let's introduce an applicative voice, which promotes the DECH argument to ABS and pushes the current ABS into a locative.
PTSnoop wrote:
So let's introduce an applicative voice, which promotes the DECH argument to ABS and pushes the current ABS into a locative.
Czedanedu Məmiárua kir hirkatwkilri.
LOC-window ERG-Miárua stone 3.INANIM-throw-APPL
It was a stone that Miárua threw at the window.
That wouldn't be an applicative voice; that would be a circumstantial voice.
Applicative voice would promote an oblique argument to the primary-object position; in dative languages that's the position the direct object occupies, but in dechticaetiative languages, in default-voice ditransitive clauses, it's the position the recipient occupies.
Circumstantial voice promotes an oblique argument to the subject position (in accusative/nominative languages) or absolutive position (in ergative/absolutive languages).

Appplicative voices usually promote some oblique argument to the primary-object position.

Indirect objects, in dative languages, and secondary objects, in dechticaetiative languages, are core arguments rather than oblique arguments. But they're "closer" to "oblique" than either of the other two core arguments.

Is "dative movement", in dative/accusative/nominative languages, a kind of "applicative voice"? "Dative movement" in such languages promotes the indirect object to the direct-object position. Wikipedia seems to thing "dative movement" is a kind of applicativization.

If "dative movement" is applicative, then maybe what you describe is not too far from applicative.

Some applicative-voice morphology on the verb only says that some kind of applicative promotion takes place. OTOH, some gives a hint as to which former oblique argument is now the primary object. (For instance, you might have four applicative-voice morphemes to affix to a verb; one to tell you the location has been promoted to direct object, one to tell you the instrument has been promoted to direct object, one to tell you the beneficiary has been promoted to direct object, and one to tell you any other oblique argument has been promoted to direct object.)

Did you give enough examples to tell which kind happens in your language? It looks like whether the oblique argument that gets promoted is an instrument or a location, the verb still has the same applicative-voice suffix attached. Or did I read that wrong?

Are you promoting oblique arguments, such as location or instrument, to the secondary object position? If so that's not applicativization exactly, though it is a very similar thing. Applicativization promotes oblique arguments to the primary-object position.

PTSnoop wrote:And now, let's cram all the cases into one big applicative sentence for a causative construction.
Czedanedu Tnrimiárua məkåprwhpåkə kir hirkatwkilri.
LOC-window DECH-Miárua ERG-rage stone 3.INANIM-throw-APPL
Her rage made Miárua throw the stone at the window.
(or "rage used Miárua to throw the stone at the window").
Very cool! [B)]

I believe you're on a road parallel-ish to the right track.

But let me explain why I thought this challenge would be challenging.

First, why combining Ergative with Dechticaetiative is challenging.

"Ergative/Absolutive" is usually a term used to label languages that treat the Patient of a prototyical Transitive clause the same way as the Subject of an Intransitive clause ("Absolutive"), and use some other treatment ("Ergative") for the Agent of a prototypical Transitive clause. It contrasts with (among other possibilities) "Accusative/Nominative", a term used to label languages that treat the Agent of a prototyical Transitive clause the same way as the Subject of an Intransitive clause ("Nominative"), and use some other treatment ("Accusative") for the Patient of a prototypical Transitive clause.

For Accusative/Nominative languages, "Dechticaetiative" is usually a term used to label languages that treat the Recipient of a prototyical Ditransitive clause the same way as the Patient of a prototypical Monotransitive clause ("Primative"), and use some other treatment ("Secundative") for the Theme of a prototypical Ditransitive clause. It contrasts with "Dative", which is usually a term used to label languages that treat the Theme of a prototyical Ditransitive clause the same way as the Patient of a prototypical Monotransitive clause ("Accusative"), and use some other treatment ("Dative") for the Recipient of a prototypical Ditransitive clause.

But how would the cases/treatments line up for a language that's Ergative and Dechticaetiative?
The most syntactically privileged Morphosyntactically-assigned Argument Position (or Grammatical Relation) would be S=P=R; the Subject of a prototypical Intransitive clause, the Patient of a prototypical Monotransitive clause, and the Recipient of a prototypical Ditransitive clause, would all take the Absolutive treatment (or case).
The second-most privileged M.A.P. (or G.R.) would be A=D; the Agent of a prototypical Monotransitive clause and the Donor/Exhibitor/Narrator of a prototypical Ditransitive clause would both take the Ergative treatment (or case).
There would be a third G.R.; prototypical Ditransitive clauses would have a third core argument, the Theme (entity located or moved). This would take a Secundative treatment or case.

Or anyway that's what I had in mind.
You can see the difficulty, though; if a language is both Ergative and Dechticaetiative, does that mean S=P=R, A=D? Or what?
Ergative and Dative combine easily; S=P=T Absolutive, A=D Ergative, R Dative.
Accusative and Dechticaetiative combine easily; S=A=D Nominative, P=R Primative, T Secundative.
But can you be sure you're doing what you should be doing when you try to combine Ergative with Dechticaetiative?

Second, why combining Applicative Voices with any system with three or more GRs is challenging.

I thought of "Applicative Voice" as any way of promoting a non-Core item (i.e. an Oblique item) which was nevertheless an Argument rather than an Adjunct, into the second-most-privileged Core-Argument position; that is, into the Primary Object position (the most-privileged GR being "the Subject" and all other GRs being "Objects"; the most-privileged Object being "the Primary Object" and the/all other Object(s) being "Secondary Object(s)".)

If there is a third GR, that is, a Secondary Object (still a Core Argument, but not the Subject and not the Primary Object), then Applicative Movement must somehow leapfrog the promoted Oblique Argument over this Secondary Object Position to put it into the Primary Object Position. (What it does the the erstwhile Primary Object -- if there was one -- may vary. Maybe it will be demoted but remain in the Core, becoming a Secondary Object. Maybe it will be demoted all the way out of the Core, becoming an Oblique Argument. Maybe it will be so demoted it becomes implicit and is not spoken of.)

IMO this could be a challenge. There may be a different challenge in Applicativizing an Intransitive clause, from Applicativizing a Monotransitive clause, from Applicativizing a Ditransitive clause.

Third, why combining Applicative Voices with Ergativity might be challenging.

In a strictly morphologically-and-syntactically Ergative language (if there were any such natlangs), the Absolutive would be the syntactically-most-privileged GR and the Ergative would be the second-most-privileged GR.
But among natlangs Applicativization is usually described as promoting an Oblique Argument to the Direct Object slot.
OK; in a purely Ergative language's prototypical Monotransitive clause, which participant counts as the Direct Object?
The syntactically most-privileged Core Argument is the Absolutive.
The second-most-privileged Core Argument is the Ergative.
Depending on whose definitions you use, that would make the Absolutive be the Subject, and would make the Ergative be the Primary Object.
Does Applicativization, in Ergative languages, mean promoting an Oblique Argument to the Ergative slot?

Fourth, additional reasons combining Applicative Voices with Dechticaetiativity might be challenging.

Among natlangs Applicativization is usually described as promoting an Oblique Argument to the Direct Object slot.
But Dechticaetiative languages don't have Direct Objects. Instead they have Primary Objects and Secondary Objects.
The second-most-privileged Core Argument is the Primary Object.
In an Accusative/Nominative language that was also Dechticaetiative, we would have S=A=D (Nominative) and P=R (Primative or Accusative) and T (Secundative). The Primary Object, Patient of Monotransitives and Recipient of Ditransitives, would be the second-most-privileged GR. I was expecting and intending that Applicativization, in such a language, would promote an Oblique Argument to the Primary Object (P=R) slot.

In an Ergative/Absolutive language that was also Dative, we would have S=P=T (Absolutive) and A=D (Ergative) and R (Dative). The Ergative, Agent of Monotransitives and "Donor" of Ditransitives, would be the second-most-privileged GR.
In an Ergative/Absolutive language that was also Dechticaetiative, I think we would have S=P=R (Absolutive) as the most-privileged GR, and A=D (Ergative) as the second-most-privileged, and T (Secundative) as the 3rd-most-privileged. The Ergative, Agent of Monotransitives and "Donor" of Ditransitives, would again be the second-most-privileged GR.
I expected/intendid Applicativization, in such a language, to promote an Oblique Argument to the Ergative slot.
I can't decide whether IMO promoting the Secondary Object to the Ergative slot should also count as Applicativization in such a language; perhaps it should.

I hope some of that helps clear up some of the challenge?
User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 3948
Joined: Tue 14 Aug 2012, 18:32

Re: "Make these work together" game.

Post by Creyeditor » Tue 09 Jul 2013, 23:06

eldin raigmore wrote:1. The language is ergative.
2. The language is dechticaetiative.
3. The language has "applicative voices".
Okay, I actually thought I came up with a solution before I read your post eldin, however, I am not sure about it anymore.
Spoiler:
Lexicon
sun - woa
shine - blir
dog - wau
man - gra
bite - ham
hit - phaam
give1- nda
give2 - maj
stick - khroj
village - plagab
1.SG - sad

affixes
-ABS - -Ø
-ERG -i/-jo
-OBL -khaph
-SECUNDATIVE - ada/-da
-S.3.SG - -Ø
-P.3SG - -Ø
-A.3SG - -Ø
-A.1SG - -karo
-P.1SG - -rathi
APPL1- - nu-
APPL2- - zhi-
Okay a normal intransitive sentence, absolutive subject, personal agreement, Subject-Verb.
(1)
Woa blir.
Woa-Ø blir-Ø.
sun-ABS shine-S.3SG
The sun shines.

A transitive sentence, ergative agent, absolutive patient, polypersonal agreement, Agent-Patient-Verb.
(2)
Waujo gra ham.
Wau-jo gra-Ø ham-Ø-Ø.
dog-ERG man-ABS bite-P.3SG-A.3SG
The dog bites the man.

Another transitive sentence to demonstrate polypersonal agreement.
(3)
Sadi wau phaamkaro.
Sad-i wau-Ø phaam-Ø-karo.
1SG-ERG dog-ABS hit-P.3SG-A.1SG
I hit the dog.

Two ditransitive Dechticaetiative1 sentences. The theme is in the secundative case.
(4a)
Grajo sad ndakaro wauda.
Gra-jo sad-Ø nda-Ø-karo wauda.
man-ERG 1SG-ABS give1-P.3SG-A.1SG dog-SECUNDATIVE
I gave the dog to the man.
(4b)
Sadi gra majkaro wauda.
Sad-i gra-Ø maj-Ø-karo wau-da.
1SG-ERG man-ABS give2-P.3SG-A.1SG dog-SECUNDATIVE
I gave the dog to the man.

An intransitive sentence with a benefactive in the oblique case.
(5)
Woa blir sadkhaph.
Woa-Ø blir-Ø sad-khaph.
sun-ABS shine-3.SG 1SG-OBL
The sun shines for me.

An applicative12 sentence. The oblique is moved into the ergative case, agent slot. The subject is kept in the absolutive case, so it is in the patient slot.
(6a)
Sadi woa nublirkaro.
Sad-i woa-Ø nu-blir-Ø-karo.
1SG-ERG sun-ABS APPL1-shine-P.3SG-A.1SG
The sun shines for me. OR The sun shines at me. OR The sun shines with me.

Another applicative sentence. This time APPL2, the oblique is moved into the patient slot, thus absolutive case, the subject changes its case to ergative and occupies the agent sot. It has the same meaning as (6a).
(6b)
Woajo sad zhiblirrathi.
Woa-jo sad-Ø zhi-blir-rathi-Ø.
sun-ERG 1SG-ABS APPL2-shine-P.1SG-A.3SG
The sun shines for me. OR The sun shines at me. OR The sun shines with me.

A transitive sentence with an instrumental in the oblique case.
(7)
Sadi wau phaamkaro khrojkhaph.
sad-i wau-Ø phaam-Ø-karo khroj-khaph
1SG-ERG dog-ABS hit-P.3SG-A.1SG stick-OBL
I hit the dog with a stick.

Although this sentence has two ergative argeuments, it is clearly visible from verbal person marking and word order, that the leftmost is the "second" or the "weaker" agent-like argument.
(8a)
Khrojjo sadi wau nuphaamkaro.
khroj-jo sad-i wau-Ø nu-phaam-Ø-karo.
stick-ERG 1SG-ERG dog-ABS APPL1-hit-P.3SG-A.1SG
I hit the dog with a stick.

This sentence has two primary objects. I am not really sure if that looks natural, especially because it is not easy to distinguish them from each other.
(8b)
Sadi khroj wau zhiphaamkaro.
sad-i khroj-Ø wau-Ø zhi-phaam-Ø-karo.
1SG-ERG stick-ABS dog-ABS APPL2-hit-P.3SG-A.1SG
I hit the dog with a stick. OR I hit the stick with a dog.

A ditransitive sentence with a locative oblique. For an explanation of the two versions see (4a) and (4b).
(9a)
Grajo sad ndarathi wauda plagabkhaph.
gra-jo sad-Ø nda-rathi-Ø wau-da plagab-khaph
man-ERG 1SG-ABS give1-P.1SG-A.3SG dog-SECUNDATIVE village-OBL
In the village, I gave the dog to the man.
(9b)
Sadi gra majkaro wauda plagabkhaph
sad-i gra maj-Ø-karo wau-da plagab-khaph.
1SG-ERG man-ABS give2-P.3SG-A.1SG dog-SECUNDATIVE village-OBL
In the village, I gave the dog to the man.

In total that makes four versions of this sentence in the applictaive voice, using two different lexems for "to give" and two different applicative voices. The theme remains in the Secundative case.
(10a)
Plagabi grajo sad nundarathi wauda.
plagab-i gra-jo sad-Ø nu-nda-rathi-Ø wau-da
village-ERG man-ERG 1SG-ABS APPL1-give1-P.1SG-A.3SG dog-SECUNDATIVE
(10b)
Grajo plagab sad zhindarathi wauda.
gra-jo plagab-Ø sad-Ø nu-nda-rathi-Ø wau-da
man-ERG village-ABS 1SG-ABS APPL2-give1-P.1SG-A.3SG dog-SECUNDATIVE
(10c)
Plagabi sadi gra numajkaro wauda.
plagab-i sad-i gra-Ø nu-maj-Ø-karo wau-da.
village-ERG 1SG-ERG man-ABS APPL1-give2-P.3SG-A.1SG dog-SECUNDATIVE
(10d)
Sadi gra plagab zhimajkaro wauda.
sad-i gra-Ø plagab-Ø zhi-maj-Ø-karo wau-da
1SG-ERG man-ABS village-ABS APPL2-give2-P.3SG-A.1SG dog-SECUNDATIVE

In the village, I gave the dog to the man

1Dechticaetiative interpreted as:
Recipient in a ditransitive clause is in the marked case of a transitive clause, theme is in an oblique case and agent is in the unmarked case.
OR
Recipient is in the case of the object of a transitive clause, theme is in an oblique case and agent is in the subject case of a transitive clause.

2Applicative voice interpreted as:
An oblique is moved in the role of the marked case in a transitive sentence.
OR
An oblique is moved in the role of the object in a transitive sentence.
so what do you think?
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 :deu: 2 :eng: 3 :fra: 4 :esp: 4 :ind:
:con: Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
[<3] Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics [<3]
User avatar
eldin raigmore
fire
fire
Posts: 5684
Joined: Sat 14 Aug 2010, 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: "Make these work together" game.

Post by eldin raigmore » Wed 10 Jul 2013, 18:15

Creyeditor wrote:so what do you think?
I think it's probably a success.
Remember that the interpretations I had in mind may not have necessarily been the only "correct: ones.
Maybe PTSnoop's interpretation was one of the "correct" ones; it's just not the one I had in mind.
Part of the challenge was coming up with an interpretation of "dechticaetiative" and of "applicative" that would work with ergativity and with each other.
Looks like you may have done that.

Creyeditor wrote:1Dechticaetiative interpreted as:
Recipient in a ditransitive clause is in the marked case of a transitive clause, theme is in an oblique case and agent is in the unmarked case.
OR
Recipient is in the case of the object of a transitive clause, theme is in an oblique case and agent is in the subject case of a transitive clause.
1) Which one of those did you decide on for this answer to the challenge? Both, right? "Give1" being the first interpretation and "give2" being the second? (Would you also have "show1" and "show2", or "tell1" and "tell2"?)

2) Here I find "theme is in an oblique case" to be maybe a flaw.

I had thought Dechticaetiativity, like Dativity, to require that there be a third core-argument position; that is, a third Grammatical Relation.

For instance, if Ditransitive verbs actually agreed with three of their arguments rather than only two, that would prove (or, perhaps, almost prove) that all three agreed-with arguments were in fact core-arguments, i.e., GRs.

But there are several well-studied languages for which "the jury is still out" on the question of whether they have three GRs or only two. Accordingly in some languages -- particularly those referred to in the last sentence -- there are clauses in which it is difficult to determine whether one of the arguments is an oblique argument or a Secondary Object (that is, a third core argument).

Deciding that the Theme of a Ditransitive is in an oblique case, and thus the case you call "Secundative" is an oblique case instead of a core case, is one way to avoid one of the challenges of combining Applicatives with Dechticaetiativity.
And certainly in any language with Secondary Objects, the Secondary Objects "are closer to" oblique arguments than any other core argument (that is, the Subject and the Primary Object).

In a language with cases, one way to tell core-arguments apart from oblique arguments, is that the core arguments' cases are all "Syntactic cases" or "Grammatical cases" (such as Nominative, Accusative, Dative, or Genitive), while the oblique arguments' cases are all "Semantic cases".

A "Semantic case" tells what semantic role its noun plays, while a "Syntactic case" tells what grammatical relation its noun has to some other piece of its clause.
For instance, here are a bunch of semantic cases. Adessive or Locative case tells that the noun is a location where the event took place; Allative case tells that the noun is a location toward or to which the action was directed; Ablative case tells that the noun is a location from which the action came or was directed; Perlative or Vialis case tells that the noun is a location through which or along which the action passed or was directed; Instrumental case tells that the noun was used as an instrument in the action; Comitative case tells that the noun accompanied some other participant in the action; Inessive case tells that the noun is a location in which the action took place; Illative case tells that the noun is a location into which the action was directed; Elative case tells that the noun is a location out of which the action was directed; Apudessive or Pertingent case tells that the noun is touching some other participant of the clause during the action; Abessive or Privative case tells that the action took place in spite of the noun's not being available at the time; Evitative case tells that the noun was something the action avoided or escaped or obviated.
But Syntactic cases may not tell what semantic role the noun plays. In Nominative/Accusative/Dative languages, the noun in the Nominative case (if there's only one) is the clause's Subject, but that doesn't mean it's the clause's Agent; if the clause is in Passive voice, its Subject is its Patient instead. Also the noun in the Accusative case (if there's onlyl one) is the clause's Primary (or Direct) Object, but that doesn't mean it's the clause's Patient; the verb (often, in particular, its Voice) has to be consulted to find what semantic role the Direct Object plays. The noun in the Dative case (if there's only one) is the clause's Indirect Object, which, in ditransitive clauses, means its Secondary Object; but again, which semantic role that noun plays in the clause is determined in conjunction with the verb's morphology or some verbal auxiliaries. Some verbs in some languages require their Subject to be Accusative or Dative or Genitive instead of Nominative; some verbs in some languages require their (only) Object to be Dative or Genitive instead of Nominative. And a gerund's Subject or Object (whether Direct or Indirect) is usually in the Genitive.
For most languages with cases, at least one of the cases has both a Syntactic meaning and a Semantic meaning. (Adpositions, if there are any, may "govern" one of those core cases.) For an NADG language, Dative is often such a case; thus sometimes it's hard to tell whether the noun in the Dative case is in a core case or in an oblique case.
I don't see why something similar couldn't happen in Decthicaetiative languages, or in Ergative languages.

All of which goes to show that I'm not sure, either, whether you've succeeded or not.

Creyeditor wrote:2Applicative voice interpreted as:
An oblique is moved in the role of the marked case in a transitive sentence.
OR
An oblique is moved in the role of the object in a transitive sentence.
1) Which one of those did you decide on for this answer to the challenge? Both, right? APPL1 for the first interpretation and APPL2 for the second?
2) If you regarded "Secundative" to be one of the "oblique" cases for purposes of this answer to this challenge, then, did you illustrate moving the Theme into one of the other slots -- the Ergative slot or the Absolutive slot? I don't think you did, but maybe you didn't mean to, or didn't need to.

Anyhow this is a pretty good answer. It either answers the challenge, or almost answers it, IMO.
User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 3948
Joined: Tue 14 Aug 2012, 18:32

Re: "Make these work together" game.

Post by Creyeditor » Wed 10 Jul 2013, 19:55

First of all, thanks for that detailed answer, Eldin [:)]
Let's use quantum mechanics and say that I've got half a success, that's more than I usually get in games [:D]
eldin raigmore wrote: 1) Which one of those did you decide on for this answer to the challenge? Both, right? "Give1" being the first interpretation and "give2" being the second? (Would you also have "show1" and "show2", or "tell1" and "tell2"?)
Yep, you are right. I guess sometimes we would have double lexemes again, and other verbs would simply not be treated as an ditransitive verb.
eldin raigmore wrote: 2) Here I find "theme is in an oblique case" to be maybe a flaw.
I agree, this may be seen as a misinterpretation of the term "Dechticaetiativity".
eldin raigmore wrote: 1) Which one of those did you decide on for this answer to the challenge? Both, right? APPL1 for the first interpretation and APPL2 for the second?
Yes again.
eldin raigmore wrote: 2) If you regarded "Secundative" to be one of the "oblique" cases for purposes of this answer to this challenge, then, did you illustrate moving the Theme into one of the other slots -- the Ergative slot or the Absolutive slot? I don't think you did, but maybe you didn't mean to, or didn't need to.
I intended the applicative to apply for only some Oblique adjuncts, namely Benefactive, Locative and Instrumental. In fact I've never heard of a language that uses applicatives for the theme of a ditransitive clause, but I haven't heard much about applicatives anyway. Is there such a natlang?
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 :deu: 2 :eng: 3 :fra: 4 :esp: 4 :ind:
:con: Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
[<3] Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics [<3]
Post Reply