(L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here [2010-2019]
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
If English was OSV what would "I wish he would stop killing me" become? I wish me he would stop killing? He I wish would stop killing me? He I wish killing me would stop?
Visit my minicity!
Native: | Interested:
Native: | Interested:
- Creyeditor
- MVP
- Posts: 5091
- Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Here is my idea about that:
IIRC, complement clauses are objects, so the first transformation would be
[ I ]s [wish]v [he would stop killing me]o → [he would stop killing me]o [ I ]s [wish]v
If we look inside the complement clause, we have to have another transformation:
[he]s [would stop killing]v [me]o → [me]o [he]s [would stop killing]v
If we put the two together we get: [[me]o [he]s [would stop killing]v]o [ I ]s [wish]v
= Me he would stop killing, I wish.
This is of course a very relex-y way of delaing with it.
IIRC, complement clauses are objects, so the first transformation would be
[ I ]s [wish]v [he would stop killing me]o → [he would stop killing me]o [ I ]s [wish]v
If we look inside the complement clause, we have to have another transformation:
[he]s [would stop killing]v [me]o → [me]o [he]s [would stop killing]v
If we put the two together we get: [[me]o [he]s [would stop killing]v]o [ I ]s [wish]v
= Me he would stop killing, I wish.
This is of course a very relex-y way of delaing with it.
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 2 3 4 4
Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 2 3 4 4
Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Thanks, that was a puzzle that kept me up last night on a Google marathon. Very satisfying to get an answer. (Admittedly not from my own research.)
Visit my minicity!
Native: | Interested:
Native: | Interested:
- DesEsseintes
- mongolian
- Posts: 4331
- Joined: 31 Mar 2013 13:16
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Or even:
Me killing he stop would, I wish.
Me killing he stop would, I wish.
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Love me that sound change.DesEsseintes wrote: ↑02 Dec 2017 03:47Here’s an idea, although I don’t know how it ties in with the rest of your system:gestaltist wrote: ↑27 Nov 2017 17:34A good question that I don't have an answer to. Do you think dissimilatory unrounding of the non-rhotic /o u/ would be more likely instead?Salmoneus wrote: ↑27 Nov 2017 17:28Why would this happen, given that rhoticity and roundedness are phonologically similar?gestaltist wrote: ↑27 Nov 2017 14:54 Alright. The idea is that this language has very strong retroflex harmony. Basically, all coronals become retroflex, and all vowels become rhotacized if there is at least one retroflex anywhere in the word. So for example /ʈatu/ = [ʈa˞ʈu˞] but the vowels rhoticized even in absence of neighboring retroflexes, e.g.: /ʈaku/ > [ʈa˞ku˞]. In a second step, the back vowels moved from rhotacized to unrounded so [o˞ u]˞ > [ɤ ɯ]. Finally, retroflexes became alveolar, so we end up with tə˞tɯ / tə˞kɯ (there was further merging of rhotacized /a/ and /e/).
Have /e i/ back to /ɤ ɯ/ in the rhotic/retroflex environments? Much Mandarin.
- gestaltist
- mayan
- Posts: 1617
- Joined: 11 Feb 2015 11:23
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Agreed. I have added it to the language. Thanks Des!Isfendil wrote: ↑02 Dec 2017 19:16Love me that sound change.DesEsseintes wrote: ↑02 Dec 2017 03:47Here’s an idea, although I don’t know how it ties in with the rest of your system:gestaltist wrote: ↑27 Nov 2017 17:34A good question that I don't have an answer to. Do you think dissimilatory unrounding of the non-rhotic /o u/ would be more likely instead?Salmoneus wrote: ↑27 Nov 2017 17:28Why would this happen, given that rhoticity and roundedness are phonologically similar?gestaltist wrote: ↑27 Nov 2017 14:54 Alright. The idea is that this language has very strong retroflex harmony. Basically, all coronals become retroflex, and all vowels become rhotacized if there is at least one retroflex anywhere in the word. So for example /ʈatu/ = [ʈa˞ʈu˞] but the vowels rhoticized even in absence of neighboring retroflexes, e.g.: /ʈaku/ > [ʈa˞ku˞]. In a second step, the back vowels moved from rhotacized to unrounded so [o˞ u]˞ > [ɤ ɯ]. Finally, retroflexes became alveolar, so we end up with tə˞tɯ / tə˞kɯ (there was further merging of rhotacized /a/ and /e/).
Have /e i/ back to /ɤ ɯ/ in the rhotic/retroflex environments? Much Mandarin.
-
- mayan
- Posts: 2080
- Joined: 11 Jan 2015 23:22
- Location: USA
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
My solution to this is simply to first figure out what the object of each verb is, then put each object before the corresponding subject and verb (or just the verb if there is no subject). The verbs in this sentence are "wish", "would", "stop", and "killing". Marking each object with brackets:
I wish [he would [stop [killing [me]]]].
And then putting each object before its respective subject and verb (and removing brackets as this is done):
I wish [he would [stop [killing [me]]]].
I wish [he would [stop [me killing]]].
I wish [he would [me killing stop]].
I wish [me killing stop he would].
Me killing stop he would I wish.
(The comma that Creyeditor and DesEsseintes included seems unnecessary to me. In a language that is SVO by default, it makes sense, since it separates the preceding element from the following one and helps the reader to parse the unusual word order. However, in a language that is normally OSV, putting "I wish" at the end is the default, so a comma would not be needed.)
Last edited by GrandPiano on 03 Dec 2017 18:42, edited 1 time in total.
- Creyeditor
- MVP
- Posts: 5091
- Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
I think the assumptions you make about the object status are at least not uncontroversial. [stop killing me] being the object of a verb 'would' might be the least common one. I think your solution is as probable as just taking the verbal complex [would stop killing] as one complex verbal form.
Edit: Also, I included the comma just to marked embedding, maybe that's just my native German influence.
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 2 3 4 4
Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 2 3 4 4
Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics
-
- mayan
- Posts: 2080
- Joined: 11 Jan 2015 23:22
- Location: USA
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
While I agree that whether or not "stop killing me" is truly an object of "would" is debatable, syntactically English seems to regard it as such. The main verb clause follows an auxiliary verb, just as the object of a verb always follows the verb. I can't think of any case where auxiliary verbs and main verbs are treated differently from verbs and objects syntactically in English, though if there is such a case, I'd be happy to hear it. This leads me to believe that it would be the same if English were OSV - that is, auxiliary verbs and their subjects would follow main verb phrases, just as main verbs and their subjects would follow their objects.Creyeditor wrote: ↑03 Dec 2017 18:42 I think the assumptions you make about the object status are at least not uncontroversial. [stop killing me] being the object of a verb 'would' might be the least common one. I think your solution is as probable as just taking the verbal complex [would stop killing] as one complex verbal form.
Edit: That being said, I am not familiar with any OSV natlangs, so my assumptions are purely theoretical.
- Creyeditor
- MVP
- Posts: 5091
- Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Well, you have auxillary inversion, but no object inversion in questions, does that count?
I would do it. > Would I do it?
I like beans. > *I beans like?
Beans, I like. > *I beans like?
I would do it. > Would I do it?
I like beans. > *I beans like?
Beans, I like. > *I beans like?
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 2 3 4 4
Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 2 3 4 4
Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
I'm quite sure it does. There are also other tests for objecthood that the main verbs of auxiliaries seem to fail, such as passivization:Creyeditor wrote: ↑03 Dec 2017 19:49 Well, you have auxillary inversion, but no object inversion in questions, does that count?
I would be killed by him.
*Killing me is would by him.
Replacing the object with a pronoun:
I like them.
*He would it.
And probably some others, but I don't have time to really Google this right now. Of course, none of these tests are foolproof, but when something fails several of them, then there is cause to suspect that said something is not an object. Especially if there is no particularly strong reason to assume it to be an object in the first place.
-
- mayan
- Posts: 2080
- Joined: 11 Jan 2015 23:22
- Location: USA
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
I did think about this. One thing to consider is that the inversion is only between the subject and the auxiliary (and if there is no auxiliary then the dummy auxiliary "do" must be used); the object is not involved. Your second example is different from the first one; for it to match up, the sentence it becomes would have to be "Like beans I?" (this doesn't work because, as mentioned earlier, an auxiliary verb is needed, so it's actually: I like beans. > I do like beans. > Do I like beans?). There is actually one case where this inversion can be done with a non-auxiliary verb, and that's with the copula be:Creyeditor wrote: ↑03 Dec 2017 19:49 Well, you have auxillary inversion, but no object inversion in questions, does that count?
I would do it. > Would I do it?
I like beans. > *I beans like?
Beans, I like. > *I beans like?
It is a bean. > Is it a bean?
Furthermore, some dialects allow non-auxiliary have to be inverted:
I have a bean. > Have I a bean?
But in any case, I'm not sure subject-auxiliary inversion really proves anything, since it doesn't affect the object.
Part of the reason the second sentence doesn't work is because the passive voice requires the passivized verb to be in the past participle, but auxiliary verbs like would are defective and lack past participles.
In fact, the "object" in question here is not just "killing me" but "be killing me", and that could actually be evidence for it not being syntactically equivalent to a nominal object, since while "killing me" doesn't really sound terribly incorrect as the subject of the second sentence, "be killing me" does.
That's actually a good point. The only counterargument I might pose is that an auxiliary verb (at least in the context of English syntax) could be defined as a verb that takes a verb phrase as its object, and therefore by definition its object cannot be a noun or pronoun.
Here's my question: "Stop killing me" in "he would stop killing me" is clearly an argument of "would". So, if it isn't an object, what is it? (Or, if it actually isn't an argument of "would", what would you call its relationship?)
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Well first things first, the way to proceed about this is much more obvious when "that" is used:
I wish that he would stop killing me
So there are two distinct clauses. German goes further and tends to put a comma between clauses:
I wish, (that) he would stop killing me
Then you can treat each clause separately. Depending on how you want verbs to be placed can change the look (eg. often SOV/OSV implies a main verb-final position).
Me he would stop killing (that) I wish vs. Me he stop killing would (that) I wish vs. Me he killing stop would (that) I wish
: | : | : | :
Conlangs: Hawntow, Yorkish, misc.
she/her
Conlangs: Hawntow, Yorkish, misc.
she/her
- Creyeditor
- MVP
- Posts: 5091
- Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
I'm glad you ask. This is what people (at least) in Generative linguistics call a head-complement relationship. The object is the complement of the verb, the verb phrase is the complement of the auxiliary and so on. But keep in mind that the subject is usually not considered the complement of anything.GrandPiano wrote: ↑04 Dec 2017 02:00Here's my question: "Stop killing me" in "he would stop killing me" is clearly an argument of "would". So, if it isn't an object, what is it? (Or, if it actually isn't an argument of "would", what would you call its relationship?)
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 2 3 4 4
Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 2 3 4 4
Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
The inversion turns the order into AUX-S-V-O, so strictly speaking, I'm guessing that should actually become "like I beans?" In any case, this does show that auxiliaries are syntactically different from other verbs - but granted, it's not a great test for objects.GrandPiano wrote: ↑04 Dec 2017 02:00I did think about this. One thing to consider is that the inversion is only between the subject and the auxiliary (and if there is no auxiliary then the dummy auxiliary "do" must be used); the object is not involved. Your second example is different from the first one; for it to match up, the sentence it becomes would have to be "Like beans I?" (this doesn't work because, as mentioned earlier, an auxiliary verb is needed, so it's actually: I like beans. > I do like beans. > Do I like beans?).Creyeditor wrote: ↑03 Dec 2017 19:49 Well, you have auxillary inversion, but no object inversion in questions, does that count?
I would do it. > Would I do it?
I like beans. > *I beans like?
Beans, I like. > *I beans like?
Actually, I think I should just have used kill (not killing) in order for the structure to be perfectly analogical to nominal objects. In any case, it's not.Part of the reason the second sentence doesn't work is because the passive voice requires the passivized verb to be in the past participle, but auxiliary verbs like would are defective and lack past participles.
In fact, the "object" in question here is not just "killing me" but "be killing me", and that could actually be evidence for it not being syntactically equivalent to a nominal object, since while "killing me" doesn't really sound terribly incorrect as the subject of the second sentence, "be killing me" does.
Well, I dug up my old English textbooks from '06, and apparently, "the bride's mother threw a large pickled gherkin at the tormented lover".Here's my question: "Stop killing me" in "he would stop killing me" is clearly an argument of "would". So, if it isn't an object, what is it? (Or, if it actually isn't an argument of "would", what would you call its relationship?)
Nothing that useful on this particular subject, though. "Complement" is about as specific as these seem to get - which isn't that helpful, since objects are also a type of complement. But at least it's a fairly safe term to use.
- Creyeditor
- MVP
- Posts: 5091
- Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
I don't know how Chinese converbs started out, were they verbs or prepositions. Does anyone know?
Maybe the new Conlangery episode will reveals the answer.
Maybe the new Conlangery episode will reveals the answer.
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 2 3 4 4
Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 2 3 4 4
Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
I'm quite sure they were verbs originally, but I can't find a verification source. I definitely have read about it.Creyeditor wrote: ↑05 Dec 2017 15:02 I don't know how Chinese converbs started out, were they verbs or prepositions. Does anyone know?
Maybe the new Conlangery episode will reveals the answer.
Follow-up question: How are the conlangery episodes? Are they worth it? They're at 1 hour each so they're propably really deep, aren't they?
Wipe the glass. This is the usual way to start, even in the days, day and night, only a happy one.
- gestaltist
- mayan
- Posts: 1617
- Joined: 11 Feb 2015 11:23
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Yes, they are worth it, especially during the period when William Annis was participating. He was always super well prepared with a lot of interesting research. I learned a lot from that show.Iyionaku wrote: ↑06 Dec 2017 11:37I'm quite sure they were verbs originally, but I can't find a verification source. I definitely have read about it.Creyeditor wrote: ↑05 Dec 2017 15:02 I don't know how Chinese converbs started out, were they verbs or prepositions. Does anyone know?
Maybe the new Conlangery episode will reveals the answer.
Follow-up question: How are the conlangery episodes? Are they worth it? They're at 1 hour each so they're propably really deep, aren't they?