Return-Path: Received: by snark.thyrsus.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.21.1 #21.19) id ; Mon, 6 Jul 92 09:07 EDT Received: by cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (5.57/UUCP-Project/Commodore 2/8/91) id AA16660; Mon, 6 Jul 92 08:45:46 EDT Received: from pucc.Princeton.EDU by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA29228; Mon, 6 Jul 92 08:24:01 -0400 Message-Id: <9207061224.AA29228@relay1.UU.NET> Received: from PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU by pucc.Princeton.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 5033; Mon, 06 Jul 92 08:23:25 EDT Received: by PUCC (Mailer R2.08 ptf033) id 7420; Mon, 06 Jul 92 08:09:24 EDT Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1992 12:32:48 BST Reply-To: CJ FINE Sender: Lojban list From: CJ FINE Subject: De-emphatics, Dagur and Topicalisers X-To: Lojban list To: John Cowan , Eric Raymond , Eric Tiedemann Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Mon Jul 6 09:07:38 1992 X-From-Space-Address: cbmvax!uunet!CUVMB.BITNET!LOJBAN We have recently adopted a "de-emphatic" particle (bi'u?) in response to a claim that Dagur Mongolian had such a word. I believe that this was a misunderstanding. However, I believe that we could do with a topicalising particle. Martin, "Dagur Mongolian Grammar, Texts, and Lexicon" (Indiana University Uralic and Altaic Series, Vol 4, Bloomington IN, 1961) says on page 23: The emphasis particles are ~le 'only, even' (reinforced emphasis), ~(i)ni 'as for' (reduced emphasis), ~bole 'as for' (contrastive emphasis), ~ci 'any, whatever', and ~beci 'even if it be' (restrictive emphasis). [The '~' is not part of the language, but Martin's notation for setting off certain kinds of morphological element] In the associated table of allomorphs of particles, we read: ~ni 1. 'as for': particle showing non-contrastive topic; cf. bole (contrastive) It seems clear to me that, despite the misleading phrase 'reduced emphasis', this particle is 'reduced' only in comparison with the other possibilities, and not with respect to the unmarked form; and secondly, what he calls 'emphasis' I would refer to as 'topicalisation' or 'salience' (like Japanese 'wa'). Examples confirm this (though to my mind they do not clearly show the difference he asserts between ~ni and ~bole): [The marks + # are different kinds of pauses, and [] separates cases: DAT dative, ATT, attributive COM comitative] 11 (p.65): Minii + keku # buni + gere[]te ~ni + ule bai[]n My son tomorrow home DAT as-for not be ATT lemi bersa ca le lamba'idei le zdani [~ni] na zvati My son will not be home tomorrow 14 (p.70) En(e) jake ~ni # sain # base + kainde this material as-for good also cheap levi bukpu zo'u xamgu (je) to'erkargu This materal is good and cheap (= very cheap) 1 (p.76) bii ~bole # Bokore-cien nere[]tei + aile[]de + bai-j(i) ~ee I as-for B. name COM village DAT be-ing (pause-emphasis) mi zu'uzo'u fela bokoretcien. poi so'ozda cu zvati I was living in a village called Bokore-cien. This gives no support at all for a de-emphatic particle, and I think we should withdraw it. However, what it does suggest to me is that we need a topic marker. I have previously asked how to do this (translating "wa" from Japanese), and the answer was "use zo'u", which is what I did in the second and third examples above. However, this will not do in the first example unless we turn it round le zdani zo'u lemi bersa ca le lamba'idei na zvati which is approximately OK, but it seems to me to give too much prominence to le zdani, as well as only working because the role of le zdani is the x2 so it can be pragmatically supplied in the bridi. What I would like is an UI which functions as topic marker (indeed, can even be modified for intensity if you like) but without extracting the sumti from its syntactic function. So, using "xa'e" lemi bersa ca le lamba'idei le zdani xa'e na zvati and mi su'uxa'e la bokoretcien poi so'ozda cu zvati kolin