[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Mike S., On 01/09/2012 01:24:
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 3:29 PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@hidden.email <mailto:and.rosta@hidden.email>> wrote:
For each polyadic stem bcd-, the lexical entry for bcd- will specify the role of the explicit argument in bcdV.
For each triadic stem bcd-, bcdVkV would always mean that the Agent is omitted (right)?
An agent can be present without a -b- present, e.g. cskaki "A says
K". -k- always marks the k-arguments k1, k2, ... in order.
But bcdVbV would be potentially ambiguous: which of the two nonagent arguments does the second V stand for? This too could be specified in the lexical entry for bcd-. However, if an extra C could be spared for this purpose -- -x- ([G]), say -- then bcdVbV vs bcdVxV vs bcdVkV would allow any of the three args to be implicit without ambiguity.
-b- doesn't make everything, it just makes everything explicit.
Without -b-, the first argument follows from the primitive meaning.
Let me formulate as a proposal what I said, then:
1. For each polyadic stem bcd-, the lexical entry for bcd- will specify the role of the explicit argument in bcdV.
2. For triadic predicates with 2 explicit arguments, the identity of the implicit argument is marked by the C between the two Vs. There are 3 Cs,
1 between x1 & x2, x3 implicit
1 between x1 & x3, x2 implicit
1 between x2 & x3, x1 implicit
Or, better, just 2 Cs:
b between x1 & x2, x3 implicit
k between x2 & x3, x1 implicit
For between x1 & x3, x2 implicit, use {bk} (b & k could respectively be, say, m & p instead) and don't allow bk- as a predicate.
-VkVkV and VkVbV would have no defined meaning, which would be a shame.
--And.