<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>
J'aurais aimé comprendre et participer! mais je parle que le français!!!<BR> <BR>
<DIV>
<DIV id=SkyDrivePlaceholder></DIV>> Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 09:33:49 -0400<BR>> From: mmccaffe@INDIANA.EDU<BR>> Subject: Re: Continuing the morphology and syntax discussion<BR>> To: ALGONQUIANA@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG<BR>> <BR>> This "grammatical liberty" regarding animate/inanimate nouns is <BR>> extremely interesting. I wonder how far it can be taken.<BR>> <BR>> Michael McCafferty<BR>> <BR>> Quoting "Danielle E. Cyr" <dcyr@YORKU.CA>:<BR>> <BR>> > Hi Bernie,<BR>> ><BR>> > Wela'lin ugjit this beautiful example of the fluidity of Mi'kmaw and the<BR>> > speaker's freedom to customize it accordingly to his/her own perceptions.<BR>> ><BR>> > This "grammatical liberty" is something that non Aboriginal linguists<BR>> > often have<BR>> > difficulty to cope with.<BR>> ><BR>> > Danielle Cyr<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > Quoting Bernie Francis <plnal@HOTMAIL.COM>:<BR>> ><BR>> >> Hi Richard,<BR>> >><BR>> >> I wasn't planning on jumping into this but I'll throw out a couple of things<BR>> >> to you re animacy/inanimacy at least in Mi'kmaw.<BR>> >><BR>> >> The tree fell on the house is easily translated in Mi'kmaw as "Kmu'j<BR>> >> eloqtesink+p wen'ji'kuomk."<BR>> >><BR>> >> kmu'j = tree<BR>> >><BR>> >> el = directional (that way)<BR>> >><BR>> >> -oq = long shaped<BR>> >><BR>> >> -tes = sudden/jerky movement<BR>> >><BR>> >> -i = stative<BR>> >><BR>> >> -k = animate<BR>> >><BR>> >> -+p = past (plus sign represents schwa)<BR>> >><BR>> >> wen'ji- = french<BR>> >><BR>> >> -kuom = dwelling<BR>> >><BR>> >> -k = locative<BR>> >><BR>> >> The car ran into a tree. "Wutepaqn na't wen me'teskuapnn kmu'jl." ('ran' of<BR>> >> course is out of character here. One would use 'to hit' or 'to bump into'<BR>> >> since cars can't run) Therefore "Someone's car hit/bumped into a tree."<BR>> >><BR>> >> W = 3rd per. possessive<BR>> >><BR>> >> -utepaqn = car inan.<BR>> >><BR>> >> na't wen = someone<BR>> >><BR>> >> me'tesk = bump into<BR>> >><BR>> >> -uap = past<BR>> >><BR>> >> n = an.<BR>> >><BR>> >> n = obv. ('l' in Restigouche dialect)<BR>> >><BR>> >> kmu'j = tree an.<BR>> >><BR>> >> l = obv. an.<BR>> >><BR>> >> At least in Mi'kmaw Richard, there's nothing ungrammatical about the 2nd<BR>> >> sentence.<BR>> >><BR>> >> Sometime, animacy/inanimacy is determined by distance, i.e., a bus on my<BR>> >> reserve is inanimate because (I believe) it's walking distance to town. In<BR>> >> Eskasoni a reserve which is 30 miles from Sydney, N.S., it is animate. Yet,<BR>> >> my theory falls down when I realize that a motorcycle is inanimate on my<BR>> >> reserve but animate in Eskasoni.<BR>> >><BR>> >> A fridge is always animate probably because it's very important in the<BR>> >> household whereas a TV is inanimate (or so I thought). I discovered later<BR>> >> that only the box around the TV is inanimate whereas the picture tube is<BR>> >> animate. The new flat screen TV has grammatically taken on the<BR>> >> inanimacy like<BR>> >> the older sets.<BR>> >><BR>> >> Inanimate objects in Mi'kmaw can easily become animate. It is we Mi'kmaq who<BR>> >> may imbue that object with a spirit causing it to become animate. We can do<BR>> >> this by recreating it in some way.<BR>> >><BR>> >> I don't know if I helped or made things even more complicated. In<BR>> >> any event I<BR>> >> decided to send it along for your perusal.<BR>> >><BR>> >> Good luck Richard.<BR>> >><BR>> >> berni francis<BR>> >><BR>> >><BR>> >> Sent from my iPad<BR>> >><BR>> >> On 2012-11-01, at 8:04 PM, "Richard RHODES" <rrhodes@BERKELEY.EDU> wrote:<BR>> >><BR>> >> > Charles (and everyone listening in),<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> > I think the hardcore linguists are concerned about just how much this<BR>> >> discussion will be "inside baseball".<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> > To whit, Julie presented a wonderful paper on the relevance of<BR>> >> sentience in the formation of Innu intransitive verbs.<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> > The general background is this: everyone knows that the class of<BR>> >> "natural" animates are those things that are or appear to be capable of<BR>> >> moving under their own power. Hence, cars, trains, and big boats. (These are<BR>> >> opposed to words that are purely grammatical animates, like trees and<BR>> >> blackberries, tobacco and pipes, and the like.) For some time, people have<BR>> >> been observing that there are syntactic restrictions on grammatical animates<BR>> >> that are not "natural" animates. So many languages have restrictions on<BR>> >> straightforward translations of clauses like:<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> > The tree fell on the house.<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> > Words that are not "natural" animates are banned (or at least greatly<BR>> >> dispreferred) as the subjects of TI's. (If any of the native speakers out<BR>> >> there find such clauses OK in their language, I'd sure like to know.)<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> > Trickier are sentences like:<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> > The car ran into the tree.<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> > Most of my consultants in Ottawa find such sentences completely<BR>> >> ungrammatical, or at the least very weird. But no one has worked much on the<BR>> >> problem.<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> > So that brings us to Julie's paper. She argued from features of II verb<BR>> >> derivation that there is a three distinction in animacy. She called the most<BR>> >> animate entities sentient. Those that are capable of some kinds of<BR>> >> self-action, but not of awareness (my terms, not hers) teleological. (The<BR>> >> view is more nuanced, but this will do for now.) And all the rest are<BR>> >> inanimate. At that point, some of us would have said she had a paper and<BR>> >> could have walked away.<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> > But, of course, she didn't. Julie wants to do more. So she spent a good<BR>> >> deal of her paper talking about the mechanics of placing the<BR>> >> relevant part of<BR>> >> verb structure in a particular place in the pre-fab structure<BR>> >> dictated by the<BR>> >> approach to syntax she ascribes to.<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> > Phil Lesourd and I asked whether seeking a structural solution was the<BR>> >> right way to go.<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> > My question was based on the English example which was provably semantic,<BR>> >> not structural. Phil's question was more general.<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> > But the whole discussion got bogged down. Julie seemed to be saying that<BR>> >> there's great value in UG -- which neither Phil nor I believe -- and that's<BR>> >> as far as it got.<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> > More later,<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> > Rich<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> ><BR>> >> ><BR>> >> > On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 11:25:28 -0400, Charles Bishop wrote:<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> > Hi Richard,<BR>> >> > Sorry that I couldn't be at this year's AC. What was Julie's point?<BR>> >> > Charles<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> > On Oct 30, 2012, at 4:07 PM, Richard RHODES wrote:<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> > Folks,<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> > I'm just putting out a feeler to see if there is interest in<BR>> >> continuing the<BR>> >> syntax morphology discussion online.<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> > It seemed like Julie Brittain's paper on Sunday morning put us<BR>> >> right in the<BR>> >> middle of it again, but half of the folks were already gone by then.<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> > Let me know if it's worth talking in this venue.<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> > Cheers,<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> > Rich Rhodes<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> > Richard A. Rhodes<BR>> >> > Department of Linguistics<BR>> >> > 1203 Dwinelle Hall #2650<BR>> >> > University of California<BR>> >> > Berkeley, 94720<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> ><BR>> >> ><BR>> >> ><BR>> >> ><BR>> >> ><BR>> >><BR>> >><BR>> >><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > "The only hope we have as human beings is to learn each other's<BR>> > languages. Only<BR>> > then can we truly hope to understand one another."<BR>> ><BR>> > Professor Danielle E. Cyr<BR>> > Department of French Studies<BR>> > York University<BR>> > Toronto, ON, Canada, M3J 1P3<BR>> > Tel. 1.416.736.2100 #310180<BR>> > FAX. 1.416.736.5924<BR>> > dcyr@yorku.ca<BR>> ><BR></DIV> </div></body>
</html><p>