Nominal Ablaut, Noun Theme Formants, and Demonstratives

[Rankin, Robert L]

> 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.

I think what you're calling "appositive" is what I'm thinking of as
predicative usage. I the absence of a copula it might not be easy to tell
the difference.

> 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.

I think we're just using a term we shouldn't be using for this.  I was
thinking of "movement" and assuming that unnecessary movement probably
signals some sort of pragmatic marking. That is, I doubt very much that both
DEM-N and N-DEM in Dhegiha are equally marked/unmarked. I'm assuming that
the less common is the marked one, though field work may show that not to be
the case.

Bob