In which conlangs or natlangs can you say either of the following sentences in just one or two clauses?
And how can you do so?
And do those answers vary depending on the precise meaning?
And how ambiguous or precise is the result?
(a) Al made Bob convince Carl to give Ellie Dobbin for Fran.
(b) Al convinced Bob to make Carl give Ellie Dobbin for Fran.
Spoiler:
Suppose a language:
- Has ditransitive clauses.
- Allows benefactive applicativization.
- Allows morphological direct causativization.
- Allows morphological indirect causativization.
- Allows causativization and applicativization to be applied to ditransitive clauses.
- Allows causativization and applicativization to both be applied to the same verb at the same time or one after the other.
- Allows causativization to be applied to a verb that's already been causativized; or IOW allows direct morphological causativization and indirect morphological causativization to both be applied to the same verb at the same time.
Spoiler:
(1) For instance, a ditransitive clause might mean
"Carl gave Dobbin to Ellie".
or
"Carl gave Ellie Dobbin".
(2) One could benefactively applicativize (1) to mean
"Carl gave-BEN.APP Francis Ellie Dobbin".
There might be one verb agreeing with all four participants.
Either the verb's voice or the participants' cases or both could show who was the giver, who was the gift, who was the recipient, and who was the beneficiary.
(3) One could instead apply morphological direct causativization to (1) to mean
"Bob made Carl give Dobbin to Ellie".
This would actually be done with just one verb:
"Bob give-DIR.CAU Carl Ellie Dobbin", because the causativization is morphological.
Maybe the verb could agree with all four participants.
Either the verb's voice or the participants' cases or both could show who was the instigator, who was the performer, who was the gift, and who was the recipient.
(4) Or one could put indirect morphological causativization on (1) to mean
"Bob convinced Carl to give Dobbin to Ellie".
Again, this could be done with just one verb; in fact, it has to be done with just one verb to count as morphological causativization.
"Bob give-IND.CAU Carl Ellie Dobbin".
(5) If one could directly causativize (2) or applicativize (3), one could get a clause meaning:
"Bob made Carl give Dobbin to Ellie for Francis" or
"Bob give-BEN.APP-DIR.CAU Carl Dobbin to Ellie for Francis".
Again the verb's voice and/or the participants' cases could tell who was the instigator, who the performer, who the gift, who the recipient, and who the beneficiary.
Could the verb agree with all five participants?
Note that causativizing (2) would imply that Carl did the giving for Francis's sake, while applicativizing (3) would mean Bob did the making for Francis's sake.
(6) If one could indirectly causativize (2) or applicativize (4), one could get a clause meaning:
"Bob convinced Carl to give Dobbin to Ellie for Francis".
"Bob give-BEN.APP-IND.CAU Carl Francis Dobbin to Ellie ".
Again the verb's voice and/or the participants' cases could tell who was the instigator, who the performer, who the gift, who the recipient, and who the beneficiary.
Could the verb agree with all five participants?
Note that causativizing (2) would imply that Carl did the giving for Francis's sake, while applicativizing (4) would mean Bob did the convincing for Francis's sake.
(7) If one could indirectly causativize (3) or directly causativize (4), one could get a clause meaning:
"Al made Bob convince Carl to give Dobbin to Ellie".
or
"Al convinced Bob to make Carl give Dobbin to Ellie".
both of which might look like
"Al give-DIR.CAU-IND.CAU Bob Carl Dobbin to Ellie".
The verb's voice and/or the participants' cases could tell who was the instigator, who the middle agent, who the performer, who the gift, and who the recipient.
The verb probably wouldn't agree with the middle agent (Bob).
It could agree with the instigator (Al), the performer (Carl), the gift (Dobbin), and the recipient (Ellie).
It could very well be ambiguous; addressees might not be able to tell, from just this one clause, whether the speaker means
"Al made Bob convince Carl to give ..." or "Al convinced Bob to make Carl give ...".
This would especially be true if the "direct causativization" marker on the verb always had to come before (or, always had to come after) the "indirect causativization" marker.
(Even more would (6) be ambiguous if the DIR.CAU marker and the IND.CAU marker weren't different from each other.
(8) Finally, if one could indirectly causativize (5), or directly causativize (6), or benefactively applicativize (7), one could get a clause meaning:
"Al convinced Bob to make Carl give Dobbin to Ellie for Francis".
or
"Al made Bob convince Carl to give Dobbin to Ellie for Francis".
It would probably look more like
"Al give-BEN.APP-DIR.CAU-IND.CAU Bob Carl Dobbin to Ellie for Francis".
"Carl gave Dobbin to Ellie".
or
"Carl gave Ellie Dobbin".
(2) One could benefactively applicativize (1) to mean
"Carl gave-BEN.APP Francis Ellie Dobbin".
There might be one verb agreeing with all four participants.
Either the verb's voice or the participants' cases or both could show who was the giver, who was the gift, who was the recipient, and who was the beneficiary.
(3) One could instead apply morphological direct causativization to (1) to mean
"Bob made Carl give Dobbin to Ellie".
This would actually be done with just one verb:
"Bob give-DIR.CAU Carl Ellie Dobbin", because the causativization is morphological.
Maybe the verb could agree with all four participants.
Either the verb's voice or the participants' cases or both could show who was the instigator, who was the performer, who was the gift, and who was the recipient.
(4) Or one could put indirect morphological causativization on (1) to mean
"Bob convinced Carl to give Dobbin to Ellie".
Again, this could be done with just one verb; in fact, it has to be done with just one verb to count as morphological causativization.
"Bob give-IND.CAU Carl Ellie Dobbin".
(5) If one could directly causativize (2) or applicativize (3), one could get a clause meaning:
"Bob made Carl give Dobbin to Ellie for Francis" or
"Bob give-BEN.APP-DIR.CAU Carl Dobbin to Ellie for Francis".
Again the verb's voice and/or the participants' cases could tell who was the instigator, who the performer, who the gift, who the recipient, and who the beneficiary.
Could the verb agree with all five participants?
Note that causativizing (2) would imply that Carl did the giving for Francis's sake, while applicativizing (3) would mean Bob did the making for Francis's sake.
(6) If one could indirectly causativize (2) or applicativize (4), one could get a clause meaning:
"Bob convinced Carl to give Dobbin to Ellie for Francis".
"Bob give-BEN.APP-IND.CAU Carl Francis Dobbin to Ellie ".
Again the verb's voice and/or the participants' cases could tell who was the instigator, who the performer, who the gift, who the recipient, and who the beneficiary.
Could the verb agree with all five participants?
Note that causativizing (2) would imply that Carl did the giving for Francis's sake, while applicativizing (4) would mean Bob did the convincing for Francis's sake.
(7) If one could indirectly causativize (3) or directly causativize (4), one could get a clause meaning:
"Al made Bob convince Carl to give Dobbin to Ellie".
or
"Al convinced Bob to make Carl give Dobbin to Ellie".
both of which might look like
"Al give-DIR.CAU-IND.CAU Bob Carl Dobbin to Ellie".
The verb's voice and/or the participants' cases could tell who was the instigator, who the middle agent, who the performer, who the gift, and who the recipient.
The verb probably wouldn't agree with the middle agent (Bob).
It could agree with the instigator (Al), the performer (Carl), the gift (Dobbin), and the recipient (Ellie).
It could very well be ambiguous; addressees might not be able to tell, from just this one clause, whether the speaker means
"Al made Bob convince Carl to give ..." or "Al convinced Bob to make Carl give ...".
This would especially be true if the "direct causativization" marker on the verb always had to come before (or, always had to come after) the "indirect causativization" marker.
(Even more would (6) be ambiguous if the DIR.CAU marker and the IND.CAU marker weren't different from each other.
(8) Finally, if one could indirectly causativize (5), or directly causativize (6), or benefactively applicativize (7), one could get a clause meaning:
"Al convinced Bob to make Carl give Dobbin to Ellie for Francis".
or
"Al made Bob convince Carl to give Dobbin to Ellie for Francis".
It would probably look more like
"Al give-BEN.APP-DIR.CAU-IND.CAU Bob Carl Dobbin to Ellie for Francis".
Spoiler:
Semantically, the order in which the operations were performed, gives this six different interpretations:
Benefactive applicativization, then direct causativization, then indirect causativization:
"Al convinced [Bob to make [Carl, for Francis's sake, [give Ellie Dobbin]]]"
Benefactive applicativization, then indirect causativization, then direct causativization:
"Al made [Bob convince [Carl, for Francis's sake, [give Ellie Dobbin]]]"
Direct causativization, then benefactive applicativization, then indirect causativization:
"Al convinced [Bob, for Francis's sake, [to make [Carl give Ellie Dobbin]]]"
Direct causativization, then indirect causativization, then benefactive applicativization:
"Al convinced, for Francis's sake, [Bob [to make [Carl give Ellie Dobbin]]]"
Indirect causativization, then benefactive applicativization, then direct causativization:
"Al made [Bob, for Francis's sake, [convince [Carl give Ellie Dobbin]]]"
Indirect causativization, then direct causativization, then benefactive applicativization:
"Al made, for Francis's sake, [Bob [convince [Carl to give Ellie Dobbin]]]"
This single clause might not disambiguate between those interpretations at all.
Benefactive applicativization, then direct causativization, then indirect causativization:
"Al convinced [Bob to make [Carl, for Francis's sake, [give Ellie Dobbin]]]"
Benefactive applicativization, then indirect causativization, then direct causativization:
"Al made [Bob convince [Carl, for Francis's sake, [give Ellie Dobbin]]]"
Direct causativization, then benefactive applicativization, then indirect causativization:
"Al convinced [Bob, for Francis's sake, [to make [Carl give Ellie Dobbin]]]"
Direct causativization, then indirect causativization, then benefactive applicativization:
"Al convinced, for Francis's sake, [Bob [to make [Carl give Ellie Dobbin]]]"
Indirect causativization, then benefactive applicativization, then direct causativization:
"Al made [Bob, for Francis's sake, [convince [Carl give Ellie Dobbin]]]"
Indirect causativization, then direct causativization, then benefactive applicativization:
"Al made, for Francis's sake, [Bob [convince [Carl to give Ellie Dobbin]]]"
This single clause might not disambiguate between those interpretations at all.
Right, then!
What does anybody think?