<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Re: Fwd: relative roots</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<STYLE type=text/css>BLOCKQUOTE {
PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
DL {
PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
UL {
PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
OL {
PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
LI {
PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
</STYLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2873" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I agree with Rich on this. And I prefer using an
English definite as I gloss relative roots in our Cheyenne dictionary. Early in
my work on Cheyenne I used the Bloomfieldian "thus" but after awhile I realized
it didn't make much sense to many English speakers, not to mention Cheyenne
speakers for whom we want the dictionary to be user-friendly.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Hence:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Enęheševe 'he did it that way'</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Ehevoo'o 'that's what he said'</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Wayne Leman</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<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 cite="" type="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 cite="" type="cite"><BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">- Monica<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite"><BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">Begin forwarded message:</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite"><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="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 cite="" type="cite"><FONT face=Helvetica
color=#000000><B>Date:</B></FONT><FONT face=Helvetica> April 18, 2006
3:06:48 PM CDT</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="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 cite="" type="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 cite="" type="cite"><FONT face=Helvetica
color=#000000><B>Subject:</B></FONT><FONT face=Helvetica><B> Re: relative
roots</B></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite"><BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">Monica:</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite"><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">We're currently going through the
archaic English words that Bloomfield used</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">in his Menominee lexicon and trying to
come up with more colloquial</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">defintions. While thinking about
'thus' and what we could replace it with, I</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">realized that there's an
intersecting problem, which is due to the fact that</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">all of the verbs that have 'thus'
in their definition - not surprisingly -</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">have the relative root aeN- in
them. We were going to change 'thus' to 'in</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">that manner' but it occurs to me
that that might be interpreted as a</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">complete definition. So, take the
verb that Bloomfield translates as 'it</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">glows thus' - we could change it to 'it
glows in that manner' but a</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">dictionary user might not realize that
it's a verb that needs a manner adverb</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">- and that using it without one would
actually be ungrammatical to a native</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">speaker. Conversely they might not
realize how to translate it in a</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">sentence; i.e. if you used this verb
with 'brightly' the meaning would be 'it</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">glows brightly' - NOT 'it glows
brightly in that manner' or something like</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">that. Have any of you
wrestled with this one and come up with a good</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">solution?</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite"><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">Well, it seems to me that the 'thus'/'in
that manner' dilemma and the worry</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">about people thinking the gloss is a
complete definition are separate</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">issues. In our Miami dictionary, we used
'thus' a lot, but I think that was</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">just because it's all over the Algonquian
literature that way and we're so</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">used to it. Perhaps in retrospect '(in)
that way' or 'so' might have been a</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">bit more user-friendly since 'thus' is
such a marginal word in modern spoken</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">English.</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite"><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">A related issue of course is how much
info one puts into a dictionary without</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">crossing over the line into being a
grammar. I think we probably are all</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">making somewhat different decisions
about where to draw that line, and I</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">haven't decided yet where it would be
drawn in a case like this.</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite"><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">And this is the second issue! I think the
problem of speakers not knowing</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">exactly how to use a word grammatically
just based on its dictionary</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">definition is just unavoidable. In my
opinion, at the most one could write</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">'relative root' in the gloss along with
the form class, then in the intro</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">refer the user to a grammatical sketch
somewhere; or one could explain in</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">the intro that when a word has that prefix
and 'thus' (or 'in that manner',</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">or whatever) in its gloss, here's what it
means, and see the grammatical</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">sketch. Explaining the details of how to
use a relative root ninety</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">different times in a dictionary would just
drive people crazy, and they'd</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">just have to refer to the grammar
anyway.</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite"><BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">I've encountered people (not Miamis!) who
want Native American languages to</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">be spelled just like English, so that they
supposedly won't have to learn</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">any pronunciation rules. When one learns
any new language, one has to master</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">that language's spelling and pronunciation
idiosyncracies, and one does not</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">have the right to expect the rules to be
the same as English. Grammar is</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">the same way -- I've also had people
(again, not Miamis) ask "can't we learn</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">this language without any grammar?" The
answer is no, of course --</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">Algonquian grammar is SO different from
English grammar, anyone who wants to</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">make meaningful use of an Algonquian
dictionary is going to have to</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">familiarize themselves with a certain
amount of grammar. Using a dictionary</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">of Spanish or Polish or Swahili would be
the same way. And you can't</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">make grammar totally transparent in a
dictionary.</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite"><BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">Anyway, I hope these comments are
useful.</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite"><BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">Dave</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite"><BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite"><BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite"><BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite"><BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite"><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite"><BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">Monica Macaulay</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">Department of Linguistics</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">University of Wisconsin</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">1168 Van Hise Hall; 1220 Linden
Drive</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">Madison, WI 53706</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">phone (608) 262-2292; fax (608)
265-3193</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="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></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>