Word Order and Case Marking with Modals

Started by Le'eylan, March 19, 2011, 02:30:31 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Le'eylan

Krro krro pamrel seri fìtsengmì, alu oey pìlok leNa'vi
Sometimes writing here, on my Na'vi blog
=^● ⋏ ●^=

Plumps

Just for us non-linguistic sulfätu in here, but I'm intrigued. ... I understand what the 3! = 6 and 4! = 24 is supposed to mean but I've never seen it before. Is that a special linguistic way of writing that? How would this work in languages with a more restricted word order?a

'Oma Tirea

Quote from: Plumps on March 19, 2011, 07:35:04 PM
Just for us non-linguistic sulfätu in here, but I'm intrigued. ... I understand what the 3! = 6 and 4! = 24 is supposed to mean but I've never seen it before. Is that a special linguistic way of writing that? How would this work in languages with a more restricted word order?a

It's a math thing, in particular the factorial function, represented by an exclamation mark (!).  What it is is a function that takes that number and mutiplies it by all whole numbers below it, down to 1.  I don't expect this will tie into any aspect of the language.

/mathspeak

A general rule I have followed for modal verbs:
S Min Vin
S Min Vtr O-it
S Mtr Vin
S-ìl Mtr Vtr O-it

Not sure how this has changed though... ???

[img]http://swokaikran.skxawng.lu/sigbar/nwotd.php?p=2b[/img]

ÌTXTSTXRR!!

Srake serar le'Ìnglìsìa lì'fyayä aylì'ut?  Nari si älofoniru rutxe!!

wm.annis

Quote from: Plumps on March 19, 2011, 07:35:04 PMJust for us non-linguistic sulfätu in here, but I'm intrigued. ... I understand what the 3! = 6 and 4! = 24 is supposed to mean but I've never seen it before. Is that a special linguistic way of writing that?

Remember, Frommer's initial studies in college were in math. ;)

Plumps

Quote from: wm.annis on March 19, 2011, 08:08:46 PM
Quote from: Plumps on March 19, 2011, 07:35:04 PMJust for us non-linguistic sulfätu in here, but I'm intrigued. ... I understand what the 3! = 6 and 4! = 24 is supposed to mean but I've never seen it before. Is that a special linguistic way of writing that?

Remember, Frommer's initial studies in college were in math. ;)

Well, there's the problem ;D I can talk a bit about linguistics but math is beyond me ;)
Alright, thanks guys.

MIPP

Hmmm... so, with other modal verbs, like "new", can we write:
Oel ikranit new yivom ?

That is my only doubt, for now.
Na'vi for beginners | Dict-Na'vi.com

Hufwe lìng io pay, nìfnu slä nìlaw.
Loveless, Act IV.

'Oma Tirea

Quote
9 can be either of the following:
9a. Oe teylut new yivom.
9b. Oel teylut new yivom

I'm starting to wonder if this is still true:

Quote from: Sxkxawng alu 'Oma Tirea on March 19, 2011, 07:42:47 PM
A general rule I have followed for modal verbs:
S Min Vin
S Min Vtr O-it
S Mtr Vin
S-ìl Mtr Vtr O-it

...or has new become intransitive... or does it just behave this way only when used modally? ???

[img]http://swokaikran.skxawng.lu/sigbar/nwotd.php?p=2b[/img]

ÌTXTSTXRR!!

Srake serar le'Ìnglìsìa lì'fyayä aylì'ut?  Nari si älofoniru rutxe!!

Sireayä mokri

Quote from: MIPP on March 20, 2011, 06:07:49 AM
Hmmm... so, with other modal verbs, like "new", can we write:
Oel ikranit new yivom ?

Seems like we can. If I get it right, it's only subject-object-verbs-stuff order that allows agentive to stay.

Quote from: Plumps on March 20, 2011, 05:27:09 AM
Well, there's the problem ;D I can talk a bit about linguistics but math is beyond me ;)

I'm with you on that ma tsmukan ;) ;D

Ma Sxkxawng, modal won't be transitive anyway. In the "9b" case "modal+controlled" is being treated as one single transitive verb, thus cases are applied accordingly.
When the mirror speaks, the reflection lies.

MIPP

It sounds interesting. Anyway, I always use MODAL+SUBJECT+VERB+OBJECT, so I will have to keep using no agentive marker.

A doubt: if we wrote MODAL+SUBJECT+OBJECT+VERB, we could use the agentive, right?
Na'vi for beginners | Dict-Na'vi.com

Hufwe lìng io pay, nìfnu slä nìlaw.
Loveless, Act IV.

Sireayä mokri

Quote from: MIPP on March 20, 2011, 08:52:05 AM
A doubt: if we wrote MODAL+SUBJECT+OBJECT+VERB, we could use the agentive, right?

I'm not sure. That's what we see in the first example and Pawl didn't say anything about it.
When the mirror speaks, the reflection lies.

Ikran Ahiyìk

#10
Quote from: Sireayä mokri on March 20, 2011, 09:19:11 AM
Quote from: MIPP on March 20, 2011, 08:52:05 AM
A doubt: if we wrote MODAL+SUBJECT+OBJECT+VERB, we could use the agentive, right?

I'm not sure. That's what we see in the first example and Pawl didn't say anything about it.

Shouldn't this be MODAL+VERB+SUBJECT+OBJECT ?

Quote from: K. Pawl5.  N Y O T

[...]

So a reanalysis takes place, where new yivom is thought of as a single, transitive verb, making 9b possible.
Plltxe nìhiyìk na ikran... oe fmeri sìltsan nì'ul slivu, ngaytxoa...


See the new version with fingerings!
Avatar credits to O-l-i-v-i.

Sireayä mokri

Quote from: Ikran Ahiyìk on March 20, 2011, 09:48:49 AM
Shouldn't this be MODAL+VERB+SUBJECT+OBJECT ?

That's what we see in number 5. But still Pawl said:

Quote from: na'viterione of these sentences, number 9, has an alternate form where O is oel.
When the mirror speaks, the reflection lies.

Ikran Ahiyìk

Quote from: Sireayä mokri on March 20, 2011, 10:03:01 AM
Quote from: Ikran Ahiyìk on March 20, 2011, 09:48:49 AM
Shouldn't this be MODAL+VERB+SUBJECT+OBJECT ?

That's what we see in number 5. But still Pawl said:

Quote from: na'viterione of these sentences, number 9, has an alternate form where O is oel.

Yes, 5, 6, 8, 14, 15 are not correct by this, but at least the rule won't allow MODAL and VERB to seperate.
Plltxe nìhiyìk na ikran... oe fmeri sìltsan nì'ul slivu, ngaytxoa...


See the new version with fingerings!
Avatar credits to O-l-i-v-i.

wm.annis

Quote from: Inspirata on March 19, 2011, 07:42:47 PMA general rule I have followed for modal verbs:
S Min Vin
S Min Vtr O-it
S Mtr Vin
S-ìl Mtr Vtr O-it

The last one is incorrect.  The only situation in which we have "modal" transitives is for new and kan, which require fì'u-clause to work: S-ìl Mtr futa V‹iv› ... (it's the same whether the controlled verb is transitive or intransitive).

Tanri

Quote from: wm.annis on March 20, 2011, 11:11:52 AM
Quote from: Inspirata on March 19, 2011, 07:42:47 PMA general rule I have followed for modal verbs:
S Min Vin
S Min Vtr O-it
S Mtr Vin
S-ìl Mtr Vtr O-it

The last one is incorrect.  The only situation in which we have "modal" transitives is for new and kan, which require fì'u-clause to work: S-ìl Mtr futa V‹iv› ... (it's the same whether the controlled verb is transitive or intransitive).

Some quick questions about this:


1.) Why exactly is "S-ìl Mtr Vtr O-it" invalid, when Mtr+Vtr combination can be considered as a single transitive verb?

For example "Oel new yivom teyluti", or "Oel teyluti new yivom".


2.)  Is the sentence "Oel new futa ngal teyluti y<iv>om" considered 100% modal, thus requiring y<iv>om and disabling tense+aspect combination here?

I think not, because these are two separate clauses with completely independent verbs, subjects and objects:
"ngal teyluti yom" is the subordinate clause, attached by futa as object to main clause, "Oel new".

I hope that i can use here not only <iv> infix as in the true modal/main verb combination, but more infixes, for example "Oel new futa ngal teyluti y<aly>om".
With the <aly> infix i want to express a perfective action in the future, the meaning is "to definitely and completely eat up teylu", not "to try eat teylu", "to begin eat teylu" or simply "eat teylu".
Tätxawyu akì'ong.

`Eylan Ayfalulukanä

Quote from: wm.annis on March 20, 2011, 11:11:52 AM
Quote from: Inspirata on March 19, 2011, 07:42:47 PMA general rule I have followed for modal verbs:
S Min Vin
S Min Vtr O-it
S Mtr Vin
S-ìl Mtr Vtr O-it

The last one is incorrect.  The only situation in which we have "modal" transitives is for new and kan, which require fì'u-clause to work: S-ìl Mtr futa V‹iv› ... (it's the same whether the controlled verb is transitive or intransitive).

Correct me if I am wrong, but is this not an exception for modals created by a more general rule that basically states:

Noun-ìl verb futa clause (with or without verb)

But normally, 'transitivity' cannot 'leak back' across a modal verb, excpt now in the forementioned case, or the '9b' case.

Yawey ngahu!
pamrel si ro [email protected]

wm.annis

Quote from: Tanri on March 20, 2011, 02:28:14 PM1.) Why exactly is "S-ìl Mtr Vtr O-it" invalid, when Mtr+Vtr combination can be considered as a single transitive verb?

For example "Oel new yivom teyluti", or "Oel teyluti new yivom".

But it isn't really considered a "single transitive verb."  It is reinterpreted that way only for the exception that is the subject of this blog post.  The first example is incorrect.  It's the discomfort of oe teyluti that forces the issue, nothing else.

Prrton

Quote from: wm.annis on March 20, 2011, 06:17:22 PM
Quote from: Tanri on March 20, 2011, 02:28:14 PM1.) Why exactly is "S-ìl Mtr Vtr O-it" invalid, when Mtr+Vtr combination can be considered as a single transitive verb?

For example "Oel new yivom teyluti", or "Oel teyluti new yivom".

But it isn't really considered a "single transitive verb."  It is reinterpreted that way only for the exception that is the subject of this blog post.  The first example is incorrect.  It's the discomfort of oe teyluti that forces the issue, nothing else.

This is the 'reanalysis' that he speaks of.

This is not unlike the English agreement "discomfort" that occurs in something like:

   "A family of hungry rabbits that live_ in those holes eats the lettuce every season."

We have to take great, intentional care in English to get the noun/verb agreement correct (in the textbook sense) on the verbs because we're dealing with family which is singular and and rabbits which is plural and both are distant from the main verb. Without thinking about it, we might be likely to say:

   "A family of hungry rabbits that live(?) in those holes eat_ the lettuce every season."

Of course, there is little danger of a native speaker ever saying "A family eat_ the lettuce", but with both "rabbits" and "holes" (which occurs directly adjacent to "eat  /s") in the picture we are pulled by proximity reanalysis to easily make the WRONG verb ending choice.

We understand the meaning of the more complex sentence either way, but an English teacher would have her/his red pen at the ready if the nouns and verbs don't technically line up. Recently it is even common to hear newscasters in the mainstream media who are not working off of a prepared scripts make these kinds of "errors". In an illiterate society there are no red pens or scripts. The language simply changes over time without the artificial influence of writing and documented grammatical norms.



`Eylan Ayfalulukanä

So, is 'proxity reanalysis' a real linguistic term?

Another interesting saying I have heard is that rules for grammar and syntax exist, so that an accomplished writer will know how far they can go in bending them.

I think most people here are trying to learn to write *without* bending the rules. But they day may come when the rules will be bent. And it may be that the mark of Na`vi being a living language is that it does change with time. That said, we (collectively) must be careful to make sure that any change that ultimately makes its way into Na`vi does not 'Englishfy', or "Frenchfy', etc. or even 'Latinfy' the language.

Yawey ngahu!
pamrel si ro [email protected]

Tanri

Irayo, ma eylan - for pointing me in the right direction.

Please let me know, if you find some of the following thoughts incorrect or somehow twisted:

In the sentence
"Subject Modal-verb main-Verb Object"
is the case of the object derived only from transitivity/intransitivity of main verb. Gramatically safe and without any questions.

So concentrate on modal verb. In the sentence above, case of subject is independent from transitivity of modal verb, because this verb do not have a direct object. Thus, subject remains allways in nominative.

Now, we have a sentence
"S Mtr Vtr O-t"
In this word order there are no questions as well, and all is perfectly correct.

The big problem arise, when i use flexible word order and arrange this sentence in this way:
"S O-t Mtr Vtr"

Theoretically is this correct too, but the Na'vi tripartite system is strictly separating the transitive and intransitive pairs of subject-object. So, this sentence is maybe correct, but extremely awkward and unusual, due to mix of nominative subject with accusative object.
And this is the point where some "reanalysis" take place:
In this (and only this) word order, when subject and object are placed side by side (doesn't matter which one is first), i can look at this sentence as if it were regular sentence with only one transitive verb.
This idea allows me to obey rule of strictly transitive or intransitive subject-object pairs, by turning the subject into ergative:
"S-l O-t Mtr Vtr" or "O-t S-l Mtr Vtr"

I think the key for this "reanalysis" is the idea of subject and object placed side by side, not separated by pair of modal + main verbs.

Based on this logic, the following sentences should be correct too, but i am not sure about them:
"Mtr Vtr S-l O-t", "Mtr Vtr O-t S-l"

I think that this "analysis" of this particular situation is not about relaxing or bending the rules, but actually allows us to obey them.
Tätxawyu akì'ong.