<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: Fwd: relative roots</title></head><body>
<div>Monica,</div>
<div><x-tab> </x-tab>There
are a couple of considerations with relative roots. As I have been
arguing for about ten years now (and no one seems to notice), relative
roots have properties that suggest they are analogous to head marking.
What I mean is the following.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><x-tab> </x-tab>We
translate simple transitive verb forms with something that suggests
the object slot which must be filled.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><x-tab>
</x-tab><b>waabamaad</b><x-tab>
</x-tab><i>vta</i><x-tab> </x-tab>'see
s.o./s.t. (an.)'</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Since relative roots analogously license clausal complements, we
should gloss them analogously with appropriate indefinites:</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><x-tab>
</x-tab><b>inaabid</b><x-tab>
</x-tab><x-tab>
</x-tab><i>vai</i><x-tab> </x-tab>'look in a
certain direction'</div>
<div><x-tab>
</x-tab><b>inaabamaad</b><x-tab>
</x-tab><i>vta</i><x-tab> </x-tab>'see
s.o./s.t. (an.) looking like s.t.'</div>
<div><x-tab>
</x-tab><b>apatood</b><x-tab>
</x-tab><x-tab>
</x-tab><i>vai</i><x-tab> </x-tab>'run along a
certain route'</div>
<div><x-tab>
</x-tab><b>onjinawaad</b><x-tab>
</x-tab><i>vta</i><x-tab> </x-tab>'kill s.o.
for a certain reason'</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>But with 20/20 hindsight, because the head markings all have null
definite readings, it would probably be more accurate to gloss them
with definites.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><x-tab>
</x-tab><b>waabamaad</b><x-tab>
</x-tab><i>vta</i><x-tab> </x-tab>'see
him/her/it (an.)'</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>and</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><x-tab>
</x-tab><b>inaabid</b><x-tab>
</x-tab><x-tab>
</x-tab><i>vai</i><x-tab> </x-tab>'look in
that direction'</div>
<div><x-tab>
</x-tab><b>inaabamaad</b><x-tab>
</x-tab><i>vta</i><x-tab> </x-tab>'see
him/her/it (an.) looking like that'</div>
<div><x-tab>
</x-tab><b>apatood</b><x-tab>
</x-tab><x-tab>
</x-tab><i>vai</i><x-tab> </x-tab>'run along
that route'</div>
<div><x-tab>
</x-tab><b>onjinawaad</b><x-tab>
</x-tab><i>vta</i><x-tab> </x-tab>'kill
him/her/it for that reason'</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>I used the indefinite option in my dictionary, but I'm thinking
that if I had it to do over again, I'd go with definites.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Rich</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>At 6:42 PM -0500 4/18/06, Monica Macaulay wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>I got this very helpful message from
David Costa and since it just came to me am taking the liberty of
forwarding it to the list. I think the list is set up so that
replies just go to the sender and not the list, which is silly.
I'll check into changing that.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>- Monica<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Begin forwarded message:</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Helvetica"
color="#000000"><b>From:</b></font><font face="Helvetica"> David Costa
<</font><a href="mailto:pankihtamwa@earthlink.net"><font
face="Helvetica">pankihtamwa@earthlink.net</font></a><font
face="Helvetica">></font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Helvetica"
color="#000000"><b>Date:</b></font><font face="Helvetica"> April 18,
2006 3:06:48 PM CDT</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Helvetica"
color="#000000"><b>To:</b></font><font face="Helvetica"> Monica
Macaulay <</font><a href="mailto:mmacaula@WISC.EDU"><font
face="Helvetica">mmacaula@WISC.EDU</font></a><font
face="Helvetica">></font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Helvetica"
color="#000000"><b>Cc:</b></font><font face="Helvetica"> Daryl Baldwin
<</font><a href="mailto:baldwidw@muohio.edu"><font
face="Helvetica">baldwidw@muohio.edu</font></a><font
face="Helvetica">></font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Helvetica"
color="#000000"><b>Subject:</b></font><font face="Helvetica"><b> Re:
relative roots</b></font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Monica:</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>We're currently going through the archaic
English words that Bloomfield used</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>in his Menominee lexicon and trying to
come up with more colloquial</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>defintions. While thinking about
'thus' and what we could replace it with, I</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>realized that there's an intersecting
problem, which is due to the fact that</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>all of the verbs that have 'thus'
in their definition - not surprisingly -</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>have the relative root aeN- in
them. We were going to change 'thus' to 'in</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>that manner' but it occurs to me
that that might be interpreted as a</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>complete definition. So, take the
verb that Bloomfield translates as 'it</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>glows thus' - we could change it to 'it
glows in that manner' but a</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>dictionary user might not realize that
it's a verb that needs a manner adverb</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>- and that using it without one would
actually be ungrammatical to a native</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>speaker. Conversely they might not
realize how to translate it in a</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>sentence; i.e. if you used this verb
with 'brightly' the meaning would be 'it</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>glows brightly' - NOT 'it glows
brightly in that manner' or something like</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>that. Have any of you
wrestled with this one and come up with a good</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>solution?</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Well, it seems to me that the 'thus'/'in
that manner' dilemma and the worry</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>about people thinking the gloss is a
complete definition are separate</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>issues. In our Miami dictionary, we used
'thus' a lot, but I think that was</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>just because it's all over the Algonquian
literature that way and we're so</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>used to it. Perhaps in retrospect '(in)
that way' or 'so' might have been a</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>bit more user-friendly since 'thus' is
such a marginal word in modern spoken</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>English.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>A related issue of course is how much
info one puts into a dictionary without</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>crossing over the line into being a
grammar. I think we probably are all</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>making somewhat different decisions about
where to draw that line, and I</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>haven't decided yet where it would be
drawn in a case like this.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>And this is the second issue! I think the
problem of speakers not knowing</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>exactly how to use a word grammatically
just based on its dictionary</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>definition is just unavoidable. In my
opinion, at the most one could write</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>'relative root' in the gloss along with
the form class, then in the intro</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>refer the user to a grammatical sketch
somewhere; or one could explain in</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>the intro that when a word has that
prefix and 'thus' (or 'in that manner',</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>or whatever) in its gloss, here's what it
means, and see the grammatical</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>sketch. Explaining the details of how to
use a relative root ninety</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>different times in a dictionary would
just drive people crazy, and they'd</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>just have to refer to the grammar
anyway.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>I've encountered people (not Miamis!) who
want Native American languages to</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>be spelled just like English, so that
they supposedly won't have to learn</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>any pronunciation rules. When one learns
any new language, one has to master</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>that language's spelling and
pronunciation idiosyncracies, and one does not</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>have the right to expect the rules to be
the same as English. Grammar is</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>the same way -- I've also had people
(again, not Miamis) ask "can't we learn</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>this language without any grammar?"
The answer is no, of course --</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Algonquian grammar is SO different from
English grammar, anyone who wants to</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>make meaningful use of an Algonquian
dictionary is going to have to</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>familiarize themselves with a certain
amount of grammar. Using a dictionary</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>of Spanish or Polish or Swahili would be
the same way. And you can't</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>make grammar totally transparent in a
dictionary.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Anyway, I hope these comments are
useful.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Dave</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Monica Macaulay</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Department of Linguistics</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>University of Wisconsin</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>1168 Van Hise Hall; 1220 Linden
Drive</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Madison, WI 53706</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>phone (608) 262-2292; fax (608)
265-3193</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><a
href="http://ling.wisc.edu/~macaulay/monica.html"
>http://ling.wisc.edu/~macaulay/monica.html</a></blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<x-sigsep><pre>--
</pre></x-sigsep>
<div
>******************************************************************<br
>
<br>
Richard A. Rhodes<br>
Department of Linguistics<br>
University of California<br>
Berkeley, CA 94720-2650<br>
Voice (510) 643-7325<br>
FAX (510) 643-5688<br>
<br>
******************************************************************</div
>
</body>
</html>