Nominal Ablaut, Noun Theme Formants, and Demonstratives

[Catherine Rudin/HU/AC/WSC]

> >The list I provided gave samples of most possibilities, though not of
> things like NOUN=ART DEM=ART and so on.
>
> I think in every one of my Kaw examples of this construction, the DEM-ART
is
> a predicate.

>I think Catherine Rudin had numerous non-predicative examples of this sort
>of thing.

     OK -- since my name's been mentioned, I guess I'll jump in. (I've been
reading or at least skimming this thread with interest, but I'm so totally
snowed under this fall that I've been resisting even trying to contribute
to it -- and this one will just be a quick note.)
     Yes, NOUN-ART DEM-ART is extremely common in my data, and I don't
recall even seeing any reason to think it was predicative.  DEM-ART
NOUN-ART is I guess equally common, and longer strings of nominals with
articles (DEM-ART Modifier-ART NOUN-ART, eg.) also occur.  I have a paper
that fusses over whether to analyze these as noun phrases with multiple
definiteness etc. marking (some kind of agreement on components of the NP)
or as appositive constructions; the arguments weren't entirely conclusive.


> > So, of course, when the demonstrative precedes I see that as a sort of
> > extraction.
>
> The pattern is so prevalent in my data that I have a hard time looking
upon
> it as an extraction.  Unless the DEM follows the N and forms an NP
distinct
> from the N, DEM-N looks normal to me in Kaw and, I expect, in Dhegiha
> generally.  This sort of thing can happen in languages. In Romanian you
can
> say either "omul acesta" or "acest om" 'this man' but in Spanish "este >
hombre" is the rule and I can't get speakers to accept *"hombre este" as an
> NP.

>I'd think that even if extraction is a marked or additional sort of thing
>processually, it might come to be the more common (less marked)
>alternative over time.  However, I don't know which order is considered
>historically primary in Romance!  I do have the impression that DEM > NOUN
>is normal in most of the older IE languages.

     I'm mystified here.  Just because something is extraction does not
mean it should be unusual or marked or anything, does it???  ...  For
instance, questions in English ALWAYS involve extraction, except in highly
marked echo question constructions.  I realize we're probably using the
term differently (and certainly in the context of different theoretical
assumptions, diachronic vs. synchronic orientation, etc. -- maybe I've
completely misunderstood Bob's (and John's) point -- but I still don't see
why extraction should be anything other than common and normal.

Catherine