From cbmvax!uunet!CUVMA.BITNET!LOJBAN Sat Oct 5 13:19:42 1991 Return-Path: Date: Sat Oct 5 13:19:42 1991 Message-Id: <9110051702.AA18737@relay1.UU.NET> Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: response to dwolff on subject/object X-To: conlang@buphy.bu.edu X-Cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan , Eric Raymond , Eric Tiedemann Status: RO DWolff writes (via Bruce Gilson on conlang): >I've been watching the conlang discussion and your comments about E******o. >Since Intal and other conlangs don't use an accusative, how do they >distinguish between subject and object? I'd assume they use word order, >like English, but I don't want to discuss a possibly-false assumption. The question of subject and object partially depends on what the terms mean. Non-Indo-European languages have structures 'like' subject and object but not necessarily exactly the same. I'll answer the question for Loglan/Lojban, throwing in some of the associated terms that comprise what we call 'subject' in this type of discussion. I am interested in other conlangs that account for non-universality of European 'subject'. Loglan/Lojban is essentially a word order language for determining the relative meanings/relations of predicate arguments ('objects'). In a predicate language there is no such thing as 'subject', only a collection of related objects. The place ordering of Lojban predicates is significant, and often, but not always, the order of the places corresponds to the normal Indo-European case pattern of agent-passive-etc. So usually the first argument is the 'agent' that corresponds to the Indo-European 'subject'. Other non-Indo European languages use 'ergative' constructions, wherein the thing at the front of the sentence isn't normally the 'agent', and it gets much harder to say what 'the subject' is. That first argument has a special role in the language, which corresponds to 'subject', but isn't really the same thing. Specifically, the use of a descriptor/article like 'le' with a predicate 'describes'/picks up the meaning of the current 'first place' which corresponds to the 'subject'. I'll throw in another couple of terms here, topic and focus. Topic is that which you are talking about, and focus is the information in the sentence which is emphasized for the listener. In European languages, topic is almost always identical to subject, but Japanese explicitly separates the two. In Lojban, topic is generally that first argument place, but a separate topic can be emphasized by using a 'prenex', which is similar to the formal logic structure before a statement. The result translates roughly to: "As to the accusative, Loglan/Lojban has only object cases." where "the accusative" is the topic. Focus in Lojban is indicated almost totally by position. Primary focus is on the beginning of the sentence, secondary focus on the end of the sentence. English also uses emphatic stress to obtain non-standard focus. Loglan/Lojban uses attitudinal indicators, and Lojban in addition has an emphasis word "ba'e". Certain unusual structures may catch listener focus as well by their very presence. So how does all this apply? For the standard English sentence "John goes to the market in the car." la djan. klama le zarci fu le karce x1 goer go x2 market x5(marked)transport mode x1 can be called the 'subject' because "le klama" gives "the go-er". It is also the topic and the primary focus in this sentence, with "the car" as secondary focus, presumably significant information because it is last in the sentence and because to include it, the speaker had to mark it explicitly with "fu" You may turn a sentence around into a 'passive voice' using "se" and related words, which changes the numbering as well as position ("se" exchanges the x1 and x2 giving: le zarci cu se klama la djan. fu le karce x1 market | gone-to x2 go-er x5(marked)transport mode 'le se klama' would then refer to this new x1, the destination or 'market', which now may be thought of as the 'subject'. In European languages, the the 'subject' remains the 'go-er' in the passive voice. But since even given only the last sentence you can still say 'le klama' to pick up 'the go-er' or even 'le xe klama' to pick up 'the mode of transport', or even 'le te klama' for 'the origin' that isn;t even stated in the sentence, it is logically more correct to think of all of these arguments as logically equal, making the identification of one as 'subject' a convention rather than a basic rule of the language. A different kind of reaarangement is possible, using the argument numbering words similar to "fu" used in the above - "fu" always means that the x5 argument is about to follow, "fa" the x1, "fe" the x2, etc. So I can say: fu le karce cu klama fe le zarci fa la djan. x5(marked)transport mode | go x2 market x1 goer The car as carrier, goes, to the market, John (goes). This means exactly the same thing, but focus is on the x5 place up front both by unusualness and by position. But by every other criteria, 'John' is still the 'subject', the agent, and the sentence is not in the passive voice. Lojban allows the arguments to be expressed on either side of the predicate with no change in meaning, only in emphasis. So la djan. le zarci cu klama fu le karce x1 goer x2 market | go x5(marked)transport mode John, to the market, goes via car. This puts focus on the unusual position of the x2. Thus in a sense, both x1 and x2 share the properties of 'subject'. But x1 still alone has the special role of descriptor assignment. You can omit arguments in Lojban by putting in a filler word "zo'e" for each. You can also express them on either side of the predicate, giving SVO SOV and VSO orders. If you omit all arguments from before the verb either by putting them afterwards, or just by skipping them, the result is called 'the observative'. Primary focus is placed on the predicate relationship which presumably is being commented on, and not on any 'subject'. This happens inherently with VSO order, of course, but can also hapopen in SVO order with the subject skipped, and SOV with both subject and object skipped. Usually when this is done, the x1 place is so obvious from context that it is just skipped. The 'observative' is normally used by a speaker wishing to call attention to the predicated event because she/he/it is actually then 'observing it'. This corresponds to the English 'Smoke!', which is indeterminate as to SVO, SOV, or VSO order, since there is no subject or object. But the omitted x1 place is still 'the subject' in having the normal special role. Indeed, you can skip it without putting in a filler word if you are using the normal order and continuing with x2 after the predicate: klama le zarci fu le karce go x2 market x5(marked)transport mode Look! A go-er to the market by car. And you can use 'fa' to explicitly identify the x1 after the predicate but it is still the 'subject', having secondary focus because it is unusual to express the x1 in an observative: klama fa la djan. le zarci fu le karce go x1 go-er x2 market x5(marked)transport mode Look! A go-er, John, to the market by car. But John is still the 'subject' by special role of x1. Finally an example of topic - let us say we are thinking about going to the park in the car. Someone might then say. le panka zo'u la djan. klama le zarci fu le karce the park : x1 goer go x2 market x5(marked)transport mode As to the park, John is going to the market in the car. We then recognize the semantic contrast between 'park' and 'market', putting focus on the 'market' (we would normally in English also put emphasis on 'market' in this usage; such stress isn't obligatory in Lojban, but can be useful when the semantics is muddy, so that someone doesn't contrast 'park' with 'John' or 'car'. The stress would be properly placed by preceding "zarci" with "ba'e". But note that the same sentence could be said after agreeing to go to the park in the car, to imply that the park is the unspecified x3 origin of John's going. I welcome And to correct me if I've misused the linguistic terms 'topic', 'focus', etc. But I wanted to answer the question noting that the universality of 'subject' and 'object' in languages makes the question vague, and that you have to 'focus' on the 'topic' of what 'subject' and 'object' are supposed to significantly represent in language. ---- lojbab = Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 lojbab@grebyn.com For information about Lojban, please provide a snail-post address to me via mail or phone. We are funded solely by contributions, which are encouraged for the purpose of defraying our costs, but are not mandatory.