tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jun 10 05:03:18 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

RE: RE: Infinitives and Subjects (was RE: Online Lexicon of Linguistic Terminology)


> pab wIqeltaHvIS Holtej vIqaDchugh, jIDoghba', ach...

pab vIqelDI', pIj wa' Hol neH vIbuS.  DIvI' Hol pab vIDeltaHvIS, tlhIngan
Hol vIbuSHa'.  chaq Do'Ha'.

> > > 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.

naDev 'oH /ECM/'e'.

> > 	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'.

lughchugh pojlIj, vaj *Subject* 'oHbe'ba' *John*.  pojlIj vIlaj, 'ach pojwIj
vIlaj je.  chaq *comma*mey vIlo'ta'chugh...

	For John, to leave now would be foolish.

mu'thlegh wa'DIch pojlu'meH cha' mIw lajlaHbej vay'.  mIwwIj Dalajchugh, vaj
wot *to leave*vaD *Subject* 'oH *John*'e'.  qechwIj tob wa' chovnatlh neH.

> wot {Har}vaD *be idiomatic*law' chovnatlh cha'DIch. tlhoS rap
> wotmey {pIH, *imagine*}. Daj.

*ECM* wotmey latlh tu'lu'.  motlhHa'be'.  *idiomatic* 'oHbe'.

	I expect Mary to arrive late.
	I consider Will to be intelligent.

*Preposition* vIlo'chugh, chovnatlh vItu'meH ngeDqu' Qu'  :)  :

	It's time for you to fix the car.

Duj tI' 'Iv?

> yab HaStamey bIH...

mu'mey vIyaj, 'ach qayajchu'be'.

> jInuDqa'.
>
> *SAO* tlha'laH wot {Har}. DIv *John* 'e' vIHar.
>
> 'ach lughchugh mIwHeylIj vaj:
>
> DIvmeH *John* jIHar.

ghobe'.  pab vIQIjDI' DIvI' Hol neH vIbuS.  chay' mu'tlheghvam Dayaj?

	yInmeH *Tinkerbell* jIHar.

:)

> > '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?

DungDaq.

Dungbogh mu'tlhegh *subject*vaD *case* nob *ECM* wot.
"An ECM verb assigns case to the subject of an embedded sentence."

> > 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'?

nger Dapabbogh yIngu'.  *AGENT* 'oHbe' *expletive*'e':

	It is a surprise to see you.
	It is unfortunate that he doesn't speak Klingon.

chovnatlh neH bIH.  nger pIm Dapabchugh, chaq vIHta' mu'mey.  vIHchugh, jaS
DalaH.

> > 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...

...'ej maDo'chugh matlhuHnISbe'...  (vI'omlaHbe'!)

jIQuchbe'qu'.  loQ vIHlaH tlhIngan mu', 'ach mu'tlheghmey yajlu'meH, ngeD
Qu':

	not paqvam vIlaDta'.
	paqvam'e' not vIlaDta'.

qay'be'.

> > 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... {{:)>

In for a penny...

Hmm.  wa' jagh DaHoHchugh...

> SoHvaD potlhba' wa' ngervam.

chaq *degree*wIj potlh law' ngervam potlh puS.  jIrIn vIneH!

> > "For John to have given the ball is surprising."
>
> moQ nobmo' *John*, numer ghu'.
> moQ nobDI' *John*, numer wanI'.

DIvI' mu'tlhegh DaqelDI', 'Iv mer wanI'vam?  ngu'be'lu'.

> > 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?

qechmeywIj vImuch 'e' vInID.  jIQubtaHvIS, jIghItlh.  vIrInDI', pImbe'
Datu'. HIma'.  laDtaH jaqwI' neH!

*indefinite* 'oH mojaqvam.  'ach, *indefinite* neH 'oHbe'.  /-lu'/
lo'be'lu'chugh, *definite* 'oHnIS'a' DIp?  nuq 'oH *definite*'e'?  DaH DIvI'
Hol vIqel. *definite* lungu' mu'vammey: "the", "this", "that".  *indefinite*
lungu' mu'vammey: "a", "an".  chovnatlh vImuch:

	The man sees a child.

*definite* 'oH *subject*'e'.  *indefinite* 'oH *object*'e'.  *impersonal*
'oHbe'ba' wot.  vaj, DIpmey Del *definite* *indefinite* je.  wot Delbe'.

*impersonal* 'oHchugh wot, *indefinite* 'oH'a' *subject*?  HIja'!  (HIja';
*syntax* vaD *subect* tu'lu', 'ach leghlaHbe' vay'.

	Rock-climing is difficult.

*syntax*vaD, *subject* wIngu'meH, *PRO* wIlo'.

	PRO-i rock-climbing is difficult.

*reference* 'oS /-i/.  mu'tlheghvam, *arbitrary* 'oH *reference*vam.  (latlh
*referent* 'oHbe'.)  chovnatlh pIm vImuch:

	John-i wants PRO-i to go rock-climbing.

*arbitrary* 'oHbe' *reference*vam; nagh toS *John* neH *John*.)

tlhIngan Hol'e' DaH vIqel.  *indefinite* 'oHbogh mu''e' ngu'meH, cha' wIv
tu'lu'.  /vay'/ Dalo'laH.  *subject*vaD /vay'/ Dalo'chugh, *impersonal*
'oHbe' wot; *indefinite* neH 'oH DIp.  *subject*vaD mojaq /-lu'/ Dalo'chugh,
*impersonal* 'oH wot 'ej *indefinite* 'oH DIp.

vay' vIghelnIS: /-lu'/ lo'be'lu'chugh, *definite* 'oHnIS'a' DIp?  *definite*
'oHnISbe'ba' DIp Hoch: *definite* 'oHbe'ba' /vay'/.

	puq legh loD.
	a. "The man sees a   child"
	b. "The man sees the child"

(a)Daq, *indefinite* 'oHba' "puq".  (a) (b) je lajlaH'a' vay'?  chovnatlh
Dun 'oH mu'tlheghvetlh'e'!

	lajlaH'a' vay'

/-lu'/ vIlo'laHbe'chugh (/-laH/ vIlo'DI'), *indefinite* 'oH *subject*'e'.
chovnatlhvam *canon* wIghaj.  vaj: /-lu'/ Dalo'be'chugh, *indefinite* 'oHlaH
DIpmey.  qatlh potlh?  pabvam perHa' *Okrand* 'e' 'agh.  jISaHbe'; not
vItu'ta'.

nIblaw' mIwmeyvam.  pabvam DelDI' *Okrand*, wot DelmeH DIp buSlaw'.
*indefinite* 'oHba' DIp.  'ach wot DelmeH, *impersonal* pernISlaw'. (ouch,
double object verb!)  Daj.

pItlh.

> > 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'?

chay' *infinitite* Dayaj?  ngerwIj Dalajchugh *infinitive* 'oH tlhIngan Hol
wot Hoch.  *tense* ghajbe' tlhIngan Hol wot Hoch.  ngerwIj Dalajbe', *be
conjugated* tlhIngan Hol wot Hoch.  *infinitive* 'oHbe' tlhIngan Hol wot
Hoch.  potlhbe' *tense*.

'ach potlhbe' nger Dalajbogh.  *conjugation* Del *infinitive*.  *subjects*
*objects* je Delbe'.  *subject* ghajbe'bogh wot DaDel DaneHchugh,
*impersonal* yIlo'.

> > Sorry, guys, don't mean to keep this dreadful linguistic thread going!
>
> tlhIngan Hol Dalo'chugh, vaj qay'be'.

reH lugh charghwI'!

> charghwI'

--Holtej

Back to archive top level