This is the last post on German for a while - the Hawaii adventure awaits. I am bringing my Hawaiian dictionary with me, so there will be linguistic content! But for now, more German. German is notorious among Anglophones for being a case language, the nearest modern one, and many fear it for that reason. If you look at the case system, however, it has a hollow core. In Indo-European languages, and perhaps other families, the core arguments have less case marking than the peripheral ones. A case system decays like a tree (in the case of Latin, like a eucalyptus on fire, once all five cases in feminine singular became -a), from the core outward. The plurals have already become arbitrary, with only a few rules of thumb and that strange little -n in the dative plural, and the only difference between the nominative and accusative is in the masculine (der vs den); all other nominatives and accusatives are the same for their genders and numbers (The pronouns have a similar problem, but that's another post, post-Maui). It's no wonder that the German have developed an obsession with word order! Yet even in languages that are far more meticulous about genders and noun classes and still preserve the nominative-accusative distinction, two participants of the same gender and number can still cause confusion. I was practicing my German composition by describing the plot of Mirror, Mirror (review coming soon), and ran into just such a problem describing the evil queen and Snow White (Schneewittchen, not Schneeweisschen - thanks to Bill Willingham, I know the difference).
The dative forms of German do not always aid in disambiguation. True to Indo-European form, the neuter article dem shares the dative form of masculine, while the feminine dative singular definite article der shares a form with its masculine nominative counterpart. The plural dative definite article shares its form (den) with masculine singular accusative - perhaps this is why the dative -n hangs on. At least it's not a Russian genitive-accusative!
For now, German retains its cases, but the minute it loses its final -n's it's going to turn into Eastern Dutch!
Showing posts with label syntax. Show all posts
Showing posts with label syntax. Show all posts
Sunday, May 6, 2012
Saturday, February 18, 2012
The Giving Grammar, Part I
Hawaiian is classified as a VSO (verb-subject-object) or VAP (verb-agent-patient) language. Thus a word order of VSOI, where I = indirect object, is the default order. The sentence
(1) Ke haawi aku nei au i keia ia oe (VSOI)
means "I give this to you", without emphasis on any of the nouns. If the important noun is the agent ("I"), au moves to a position before the verb complex ke haawi aku nei and receives the common emphatic particle o - the w of owau is an excrescent consonant inserted for ease of pronunciation. The sentence
(2) Owau ke haawi aku nei i keia ia oe (SVOI)
means "I give this to you." This transformation is fairly straightforward. If, however, the important noun is the patient ("this"), i keia moves to a position before the verb and receives the emphatic particle o, but this does not produce
(3a) *O keia ke haawi aku nei au ia oe (OVSI)
as "I give this to you." The patient cannot travel to the other side of the verb without the agent (a travel agent, perhaps?). The agent changes from the nominative case form au to the possessive case, a-class form ka'u; thus the phrase O keia ka'u means "This is mine." O keia may be the important noun here, but it is still not the agent, so Hawaiian change the verb complex ke haawi aku nei to the "infinitive" form e haawi aku nei. When the patient is the important noun, the sentence
(3b) O keia ka'u e haawi aku nei ia oe (OsVI)
means "This is mine to give to you," or, more simply, "I give this to you." One benefit of this structure is the clear delineation of the role of each noun. If the indirect object ("you") is the important noun, oe moves to a position before the verb and receives the emphatic particle o. There is a hitch, however, in this part of Hawaiian grammar: both objects, direct and indirect, receive the preposition i and ia. This similarity probably aids in greater flexibility, but it also creates difficulties. If one treated the direct object and indirect object identically in syntax, the sentence
(3b) O keia ka'u e haawi aku nei ia oe (OsVI)
could also mean "I give you to this" as well as "I give this to you." This is not acceptable to Hawaiian syntax. The agent travels with the indirect object to the land before the verb (in the infinitive form); the indirect.object receives the emphatic particle, and the nominative form of the agent, au, becomes the phrase ka mea a'u; a'u is a genitive case, a-class form. ka mea means "the person," "the thing," or "the cause," so it is well-suited to express the agent. The sentence
(4) O oe ka mea a'u e haawi aku nei i keia (ISVO)
means "I give this to you." The phrase ka mea is not a grammatical fossil: "They give this to you" in this structure would be
(4b) O oe na mea a lakou e haawi aku nei i keia (ISVO), with na, the plural definite article rather than the singular form ka. The grammatical ability to distinguish between possessive and genitive cases seems very important in the last two structures.
There is one last sentence structure which Hawaiian uses to place emphasis on the agent. In this structure, the nominative case au moves to a position before the verb and changes to the dative case, a-class form na'u; keia accompanies au, losing the i but not acquiring the the emphatic o , because it is not the important noun. The sentence
(5) Na'u keia e haawi aku nei ia oe (SOVI)
means "By me this is given to you" or more simply, "I give you this." Once again, all three roles are clearly marked.by position and grammatical case.
(1) Ke haawi aku nei au i keia ia oe (VSOI)
means "I give this to you", without emphasis on any of the nouns. If the important noun is the agent ("I"), au moves to a position before the verb complex ke haawi aku nei and receives the common emphatic particle o - the w of owau is an excrescent consonant inserted for ease of pronunciation. The sentence
(2) Owau ke haawi aku nei i keia ia oe (SVOI)
means "I give this to you." This transformation is fairly straightforward. If, however, the important noun is the patient ("this"), i keia moves to a position before the verb and receives the emphatic particle o, but this does not produce
(3a) *O keia ke haawi aku nei au ia oe (OVSI)
as "I give this to you." The patient cannot travel to the other side of the verb without the agent (a travel agent, perhaps?). The agent changes from the nominative case form au to the possessive case, a-class form ka'u; thus the phrase O keia ka'u means "This is mine." O keia may be the important noun here, but it is still not the agent, so Hawaiian change the verb complex ke haawi aku nei to the "infinitive" form e haawi aku nei. When the patient is the important noun, the sentence
(3b) O keia ka'u e haawi aku nei ia oe (OsVI)
means "This is mine to give to you," or, more simply, "I give this to you." One benefit of this structure is the clear delineation of the role of each noun. If the indirect object ("you") is the important noun, oe moves to a position before the verb and receives the emphatic particle o. There is a hitch, however, in this part of Hawaiian grammar: both objects, direct and indirect, receive the preposition i and ia. This similarity probably aids in greater flexibility, but it also creates difficulties. If one treated the direct object and indirect object identically in syntax, the sentence
(3b) O keia ka'u e haawi aku nei ia oe (OsVI)
could also mean "I give you to this" as well as "I give this to you." This is not acceptable to Hawaiian syntax. The agent travels with the indirect object to the land before the verb (in the infinitive form); the indirect.object receives the emphatic particle, and the nominative form of the agent, au, becomes the phrase ka mea a'u; a'u is a genitive case, a-class form. ka mea means "the person," "the thing," or "the cause," so it is well-suited to express the agent. The sentence
(4) O oe ka mea a'u e haawi aku nei i keia (ISVO)
means "I give this to you." The phrase ka mea is not a grammatical fossil: "They give this to you" in this structure would be
(4b) O oe na mea a lakou e haawi aku nei i keia (ISVO), with na, the plural definite article rather than the singular form ka. The grammatical ability to distinguish between possessive and genitive cases seems very important in the last two structures.
There is one last sentence structure which Hawaiian uses to place emphasis on the agent. In this structure, the nominative case au moves to a position before the verb and changes to the dative case, a-class form na'u; keia accompanies au, losing the i but not acquiring the the emphatic o , because it is not the important noun. The sentence
(5) Na'u keia e haawi aku nei ia oe (SOVI)
means "By me this is given to you" or more simply, "I give you this." Once again, all three roles are clearly marked.by position and grammatical case.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Palawa Kani
I am an enthusiast of languages, especially those that are moribund or reconstructed, but Palawa Kani is one of a kind. The individual features of the language are not extraordinary: many languages are creoles, or the language of post-colonial aborigines, or treated as cultural artifacts, or inspired by a need for cultural unity. I have never seen a language that combines these features in such a way, and I am simultaneously impressed and skeptical of its success.
Palawa Kani is a Aboriginal Tasmanian creole intended as a cultural language for the descendants of pure-blooded Tasmanians; it is constructed from the extant words of the Tasmanian languages and set to English word order. The Tasmanian government, in a fit of either white guilt or mainland cultural envy, is willing to support the idea. Once the idea of the savage has been abandoned, governments often promote the idea of the noble savage.
The paucity of extant Tasmanian Aboriginal words is a boon here; several endangered languages of the world do not help themselves by debating which of the dialects, all with too few people, should be the official one. The two camps of the Cornish revivalists have reconciled warring orthography (but two pronunciations) and issued official workbooks for their new Welsh-style creches, but then it's hard to get EU funding without official materials. A language that has been gutted, such as one of the languages of the California coast, may have no option, lacking sufficient grammar, other than making sacred the few remaining words.
The Tasmanian adoption of English seems to have left the languages bereft of current technological terms, although the technological level of the aboriginal population at the time of the European arrival suggests that the terms never existed. Avoidance of neologisms is a quick way to kill a fragile language; even if the language is intended as a second language and meant to place emphasis on the differences, such as the deliberately hamstrung Toki Pona, a healthy language must be able to coin new phrases, if not new words. The phrases will wear down to words later. One of the difficulties that Welsh, otherwise a relatively healthy minority language, faces is the use of Welsh in only certain contexts, even though the Cymrophones could use it in other situations.
The characterization of Palawa Kani as a creole is linguistic rather than judgmental, and the extant resources and speakers suggest a creole as the realistic option, but the associations of the word 'creole' are a liability. Creoles in Australia have names like Broken, indicating the low esteem in which they were held, and the breeding grounds were miserable camps. The use of English word order (SVO, modifier before modified word) is not far off from the syntax of global creoles (even though English IMO never was a creole), and if divergent word order is sufficient to break with tradition, then the SVO order of Modern Hebrew indicates it is not a "true" descendant of Biblical Hebrew, in which the word order is VSO. The absence of grammatical number in the 2nd personal pronoun, however, seems a little odd outside of English or a tongue which dispenses entirely with the plural; most languages which do not mandate a plural form at least possess a way of forming one if it is absolutely necessary. The holes in the grammar presumably are the result of a developing project.
This is a very new tongue, but unlike the Native American languages, it seems to have some funding and enthusiastic participants. When I first examined Washo, it seemed in a more perilous state than now. I look forward to seeing how Palawa Kani develops and thrives.
Palawa Kani is a Aboriginal Tasmanian creole intended as a cultural language for the descendants of pure-blooded Tasmanians; it is constructed from the extant words of the Tasmanian languages and set to English word order. The Tasmanian government, in a fit of either white guilt or mainland cultural envy, is willing to support the idea. Once the idea of the savage has been abandoned, governments often promote the idea of the noble savage.
The paucity of extant Tasmanian Aboriginal words is a boon here; several endangered languages of the world do not help themselves by debating which of the dialects, all with too few people, should be the official one. The two camps of the Cornish revivalists have reconciled warring orthography (but two pronunciations) and issued official workbooks for their new Welsh-style creches, but then it's hard to get EU funding without official materials. A language that has been gutted, such as one of the languages of the California coast, may have no option, lacking sufficient grammar, other than making sacred the few remaining words.
The Tasmanian adoption of English seems to have left the languages bereft of current technological terms, although the technological level of the aboriginal population at the time of the European arrival suggests that the terms never existed. Avoidance of neologisms is a quick way to kill a fragile language; even if the language is intended as a second language and meant to place emphasis on the differences, such as the deliberately hamstrung Toki Pona, a healthy language must be able to coin new phrases, if not new words. The phrases will wear down to words later. One of the difficulties that Welsh, otherwise a relatively healthy minority language, faces is the use of Welsh in only certain contexts, even though the Cymrophones could use it in other situations.
The characterization of Palawa Kani as a creole is linguistic rather than judgmental, and the extant resources and speakers suggest a creole as the realistic option, but the associations of the word 'creole' are a liability. Creoles in Australia have names like Broken, indicating the low esteem in which they were held, and the breeding grounds were miserable camps. The use of English word order (SVO, modifier before modified word) is not far off from the syntax of global creoles (even though English IMO never was a creole), and if divergent word order is sufficient to break with tradition, then the SVO order of Modern Hebrew indicates it is not a "true" descendant of Biblical Hebrew, in which the word order is VSO. The absence of grammatical number in the 2nd personal pronoun, however, seems a little odd outside of English or a tongue which dispenses entirely with the plural; most languages which do not mandate a plural form at least possess a way of forming one if it is absolutely necessary. The holes in the grammar presumably are the result of a developing project.
This is a very new tongue, but unlike the Native American languages, it seems to have some funding and enthusiastic participants. When I first examined Washo, it seemed in a more perilous state than now. I look forward to seeing how Palawa Kani develops and thrives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)