<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'>
....and to you as well, Danielle.<BR> <BR>bern<br> <BR><div><div id="SkyDrivePlaceholder"></div>> Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 19:24:17 -0500<br>> From: dcyr@YORKU.CA<br>> Subject: Re: Continuing the morphology and syntax discussion<br>> To: ALGONQUIANA@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG<br>> <br>> Thank you so much Bernie. Your contribution is very much valued. When the<br>> chapter is getting closer to its final version, I'll send it to you.<br>> <br>> Meanwhile, all the best,<br>> <br>> Danielle<br>> Quoting Bernie Francis <plnal@HOTMAIL.COM>:<br>> <br>> ><br>> > Of course Danielle! I feel honoured that you would even consider me much less<br>> > actually cite me. So, by all means. bern<br>> > > Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 16:40:21 -0500<br>> > > From: dcyr@YORKU.CA<br>> > > Subject: Re: Continuing the morphology and syntax discussion<br>> > > To: ALGONQUIANA@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG<br>> > ><br>> > > Hello again Bernie,<br>> > ><br>> > > Look, the Listuguj Mi'gmaq and I are writing a book together, on the<br>> > > Gespe'gewa'gi. There is a part of one chapter dedicated to Mi'gmaw. Your<br>> > > expanation about the possible switch from animate to inanimate and vice<br>> > versa<br>> > > is the perfect illustration of the speaker's freedom regarding how to<br>> > customize<br>> > > grammar to his/her own discourse needs. May I cite you in our book?<br>> > ><br>> > > Hopefully yes?<br>> > ><br>> > > Danielle<br>> > ><br>> > > Quoting Bernie Francis <plnal@HOTMAIL.COM>:<br>> > ><br>> > > > Firstly, HELLO DANIELLE!!! Long time no hear. Thanks for your comment<br>> > > > Danielle yet as I stated, I don't know if it will help in the discussion.<br>> > > > Yet, I'm happy in knowing that YOU got it.<br>> > > ><br>> > > > I guess we all have much to learn.<br>> > > ><br>> > > > Thanks again my friend and all the best to you.<br>> > > ><br>> > > > ber<br>> > > ><br>> > > > Sent from my iPad<br>> > > ><br>> > > > On 2012-11-02, at 10:26 AM, "Danielle E. Cyr" <dcyr@YORKU.CA> wrote:<br>> > > ><br>> > > > > Hi Bernie,<br>> > > > ><br>> > > > > Wela'lin ugjit this beautiful example of the fluidity of Mi'kmaw and<br>> > the<br>> > > > > speaker's freedom to customize it accordingly to his/her own<br>> > perceptions.<br>> > > > ><br>> > > > > This "grammatical liberty" is something that non Aboriginal linguists<br>> > often<br>> > > > 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<br>> > > > 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."<br>> > ('ran'<br>> > > > of<br>> > > > >> course is out of character here. One would use 'to hit' or 'to bump<br>> > into'<br>> > > > >> since cars can't run) Therefore "Someone's car hit/bumped into a<br>> > 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<br>> > 2nd<br>> > > > >> sentence.<br>> > > > >><br>> > > > >> Sometime, animacy/inanimacy is determined by distance, i.e., a bus on<br>> > my<br>> > > > >> reserve is inanimate because (I believe) it's walking distance to<br>> > town. In<br>> > > > >> Eskasoni a reserve which is 30 miles from Sydney, N.S., it is animate.<br>> > > > Yet,<br>> > > > >> my theory falls down when I realize that a motorcycle is inanimate on<br>> > 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<br>> > later<br>> > > > >> that only the box around the TV is inanimate whereas the picture tube<br>> > is<br>> > > > >> animate. The new flat screen TV has grammatically taken on the<br>> > inanimacy<br>> > > > like<br>> > > > >> the older sets.<br>> > > > >><br>> > > > >> Inanimate objects in Mi'kmaw can easily become animate. It is we<br>> > Mi'kmaq<br>> > > > who<br>> > > > >> may imbue that object with a spirit causing it to become animate. We<br>> > can<br>> > > > 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 any<br>> > > > 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><br>> > wrote:<br>> > > > >><br>> > > > >>> Charles (and everyone listening in),<br>> > > > >>><br>> > > > >>> I think the hardcore linguists are concerned about just how much<br>> > 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<br>> > of<br>> > > > >> moving under their own power. Hence, cars, trains, and big boats.<br>> > (These<br>> > > > 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<br>> > have<br>> > > > >> been observing that there are syntactic restrictions on grammatical<br>> > > > animates<br>> > > > >> that are not "natural" animates. So many languages have restrictions<br>> > 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<br>> > 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<br>> > on<br>> > > > the<br>> > > > >> problem.<br>> > > > >>><br>> > > > >>> So that brings us to Julie's paper. She argued from features of II<br>> > verb<br>> > > > >> derivation that there is a three distinction in animacy. She called<br>> > the<br>> > > > 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.<br>> > (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<br>> > and<br>> > > > >> could have walked away.<br>> > > > >>><br>> > > > >>> But, of course, she didn't. Julie wants to do more. So she spent a<br>> > good<br>> > > > >> deal of her paper talking about the mechanics of placing the relevant<br>> > part<br>> > > > of<br>> > > > >> verb structure in a particular place in the pre-fab structure dictated<br>> > by<br>> > > > the<br>> > > > >> approach to syntax she ascribes to.<br>> > > > >>><br>> > > > >>> Phil Lesourd and I asked whether seeking a structural solution was<br>> > the<br>> > > > >> right way to go.<br>> > > > >>><br>> > > > >>> My question was based on the English example which was provably<br>> > semantic,<br>> > > > >> not structural. Phil's question was more general.<br>> > > > >>><br>> > > > >>> But the whole discussion got bogged down. Julie seemed to be saying<br>> > that<br>> > > > >> there's great value in UG -- which neither Phil nor I believe -- and<br>> > > > 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<br>> > > > the<br>> > > > >> syntax morphology discussion online.<br>> > > > >>><br>> > > > >>> It seemed like Julie Brittain's paper on Sunday morning put us right<br>> > in<br>> > > > 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.<br>> > > > 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>> > > ><br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> > > "The only hope we have as human beings is to learn each other's languages.<br>> > 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>> ><br>> ><br>> <br>> <br>> "The only hope we have as human beings is to learn each other's 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></div> </div></body>
</html><p>