tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jun 09 12:44:51 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: RE: Infinitives and Subjects (was RE: Online Lexicon of Linguistic Terminology)
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: RE: Infinitives and Subjects (was RE: Online Lexicon of Linguistic Terminology)
- Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 15:44:42 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
pab wIqeltaHvIS Holtej vIqaDchugh, jIDoghba', ach...
On Tue, 9 Jun 1998 09:29:25 -0700 (PDT) Holtej
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> charghwI'vo':
>
> > You just reminded me to try looking up "infinitive" in my
> > Concise Oxford Dictionary. I know it is not a linguistic
> > authority source, but worth checking out:
> >
> > "(Verb-form) that expresses verbal notion without predicating it
> > of any subject (e.g. ask, to ask)."
>
> Well, there *are* cases where infinitival forms (in English) can take
> subjects. In these cases, the subject noun must receive case marking (yes,
> case; see below) from another element, such as a preposition or an
> "Exceptional Case Marking" (ECM) verb.
>
> For John to leave now would be foolish.
> I believe John to be guilty.
Dajqu'. reH chovnatlh chong DaSam.
'ach chovnatlh wa'DIch vInuDDI' jaS vIpoj. tlha' mIwHeylIj:
[For John to leave now] would be foolish.
*Subject* 'oHba' *John*. chaq *Subject 'oH *John*vaD...
DaH mejchugh *John* vaj Dogh *John*.
'ach tlha' mIwwIj:
For John [to leave now] would be foolish.
mejlu'chugh Doghlu' 'e' Har *John*. Dogh mejwI' 'e' Har *John*.
wot {mej} *Subject* 'oHbe' *John*'e'.
wot {Har}vaD *be idiomatic*law' chovnatlh cha'DIch. tlhoS rap
wotmey {pIH, *imagine*}. Daj. yab HaStamey bIH...
jInuDqa'.
*SAO* tlha'laH wot {Har}. DIv *John* 'e' vIHar.
'ach lughchugh mIwHeylIj vaj:
DIvmeH *John* jIHar.
[<<DIv *John*>> neH jatlh tlhInganna'. 'ach jeQHa' Humanpu'...]
Do not try this at home. I am not a professional. qechmey Daj
Danob.
> 'John' is definitely the subject of the infinitive, but receiving case from
> another element (P 'for' in the first, ECM verb 'believe' in the second).
ECM?
> What's important is the lack of tense (at least, from the perspective of the
> theory with which I am familiar; not so say other theories don't have
> equally valid interpretations). In Chomskian syntax (here it comes), all
> overt NPs must have case; one possible case assigner is Tense (assigning
> case to the subject; the verb itself assigns case to the object). If a verb
> is non-finite (no tense), then either there is no (overt) subject, or the
> subject NP has to get case elsewhere.
Daj. jIyajchu'be', 'ach Daj.
> That's ultimately why I was looking for a more accurate term, such as
> "impersonal." It describes a verb form that does not assign an argument
> role (say, AGENT) to a subject.
chay' *AGENT* ghaHbe'laH *subject*'e'?
> The verb may have other forms in which it
> does assign those roles. Like with the passive form, it assigns the object
> role, and no subject role; the object raises to the position of the subject.
maDo'. jaS Da tlhIngan...
> If there's a subject, it gets case from another element, usually a
> preposition.
>
> Ack, this is exactly the path I was trying to avoid going down!
DaH bImejchugh, bIDogh... {{:)>
> > Also note that Holtej's repeated reference to infinitives not
> > having reference to tense seems odd, since I would think that
> > "to have given" was an infinitive form. I'm sure there is
> > simply something that I don't understand.
>
> Alternatively, it may just be an artifact of Chomskian syntax; more general
> desecriptions of grammar probably don't make the distinction that I am
> describing. (The SIL glossary I pointed out, for example, does not.) What
> can I say? I've spent the past 7 years studying one theory. Maybe when I
> finish this degree, I can broaden my horizons. :)
SoHvaD potlhba' wa' ngervam.
> As for "to have given," this actually argues for the interpretation of
> "tense" as a subject case-marker. This verb form is inflected for aspect,
> not tense.
tlhIngan vIjatlhmo' ngoDvam vItu'be'. Qatlh vItu'meH Qu'. {{:)>
> No tense, no case-marking, no subject. * "John to have given
> the ball is surprising." But with a case-assigning preposition it's fine:
> "For John to have given the ball is surprising."
moQ nobmo' *John*, numer ghu'.
moQ nobDI' *John*, numer wanI'.
> But in defense of the term "impersonal," it's not a theory-specific term.
> Non-chomskians will understand what it means (at least, those with
> familiarity with the syntax of verbal argument structure, linguistics is a
> very broad field).
chay' pIm *impersonal* mojaq {-lu'} je?
> Jeez, no wonder there's confusion. Even Oxford's got it wrong. No, an
> infinitival form is simply not conjugated (I say for tense; more generally
> (or, less theory-specifically), for person, number, etc.). Infinitives
> *can* have subjects, in special cases.
DIvI' Hol qellu'DI', chaq bIlugh, 'ach tlhIngan Hol qellu'DI'
bIlugh'a'?
> Sorry, guys, don't mean to keep this dreadful linguistic thread going!
tlhIngan Hol Dalo'chugh, vaj qay'be'.
> > charghwI'
>
> --Holtej
charghwI'