[YG Conlang Archives] > [Latejami group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
I think I've figured a few things. As far as I can tell case tags link to the subject of the verb and modifies the verb itself, it then takes an oblique argument as it's argument. I _think_ adverbs do the same sans the oblique argument... This would imply that for a case tag to modify the object of a verb one would need to use an inverse in order to make the object the subject, and modifying the focus (of an A/P/F verb) is not possible. This is what I've gleaned from section 2.5.5 - 2.5.5.3. I don't know whether I'm correct though... I suppose though one could take an X/F verb and invert it, or one could take an A/P/F apply a passive and invert that, however doing so would again require a case tag to express the oblique argument of the verb etc... This theory sort of seems to go out of the window with the phrase "John painted the door green." where "green" is a P-s adverb which modifies the door (which would be the object, John being the subject)? Also, what is a previous word modifier? It doesn't really seem to be treated much in the monograph, and it seems really peculiar, it almost seem to fill the same position as adjectives and adverbs in English? Thus it would seem like adverbs and case-tags have more to do with the verbs _arguments_ rather than modifying the verb itself??? This part is getting serious freaking confusing. Stevo, on your comment about case-tags being open adverbs, Rick basically says more or less that in 5.0: "In effect, a case tag is an open verb argument, since its non-subject arguments are available for use. An adverb, however, is a closed verb argument, since it cannot take any more arguments of its own." So in effect an adverb can't take new arguments since the subject of the adverb is already taken by it's link to the verb's arguments, however a case-tag being di/transitive has one or two arguments open for use. In 4.1.1 0/P, 0/F, and 0 are introduced. This seems to imply that there is _no_ linkage to the subject at all, but rather generally to the entire phrase with no specification of how or why or anything. The "0" form being an adverb modifying the verb itself, which again brings up the question about previous word modifiers... This makes some sense, but leaves a lot of gaps, confusion, and things that are impossible to do (though I wouldn't know whether not being able to do certain things is actually disadvantageous). Does this help anyone or give someone some ideas of what I'm missing? I've hit a bit of a wall here. I suspect taking open-nouns, open-adjectives, adverbs, previous word modifiers, and case tags all together and seeing how they complement each other would possibly be the next step forward in figuring this out. Having a formula would have been nice though, is the code for parsing Latejami available anywhere by chance? Knowing what the parser does would help a lot in figuring this out and could possibly definitively answer this question. Not to mention that it would be seriously cool. :D