Marcus wrote:
> Hmm. Well, you're absolutely right. I did mean "theory" in a different
> sense. I meant it in the form of "one principle that can account for all
> kinds of data, including stuff that isn't directly related to the topic
it
> was developed for". They give one principle of case, without reference
to
> the different patterns (ie, accusative, ergative, active), and derive all
> the patterns from that one principle. They're idea, in layman's terms,
is
> that each noun must be within the sphere of influence of ("governed by")
a
> "case assigning" element (ie adposition or verb). The differences in the
> types come out when two elements are in the same area
I'm sure that works fine. It's just that I'm a bit skeptical about
the whole tree idea. Whenever something doesn't fit, just add another
tag to the CP. Oh well. I don't want to go into a discussion about
generative grammar that I know so little about.
> You could treat indirect objects like subjects. Some people have
proposed
> that indirect objects are in fact some kind of secondary subject.
According
> to these people, "X gives Y Z" can be semantically decomposed into "X
causes
> Y has Z". So "John gave Mary a gift" is "John caused Mary to have a
gift."
> There is interesting support for the idea. Compare the following
examples:
>
> *Who did the brother of give Mary a gift? (Pretty incomprehensible)
> *Who did John give the sister of a gift? (Huh? What is that supposed to
> mean?)
> Who did John give Mary a picture of? (Perfectly okay.)
>
> So the indirect object patterns more with the subject than the direct
> object.
That's a nice idea! I'm thinking about making causativization really
productive too, so perhaps I can do something in that area.
> On the other hand, this goes against the idea that in head marking
> languages, the indirect object takes over the role as the agreeing
object.
> (Unless you're a generativist, in which case that is expected because
> agreement disregards grammatical roles almost entirely in favor of
> structure).
Oh no!!! I'll have to abandon the idea now. Thanks a lot for mentioning
this Marcus... Just kidding. ;-)
> I'm not sure how to implement this for Pimak, but I thought I might make
the
> suggestion.
Yeah. Yet another thing to do. Hmmm... If I put my advisor in a
space ship that makes almost the speed of light and send her away
for a couple of days, that would buy me some time. Now where can
I find a space ship like that...? :-P
daniel
--
<> KATTAWIKNIK PIMAKTASAL <> daniel.andreasson@telia.com <>
<> KATSAYUKNIK PIMAK <> Daniel Andreasson <>