![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Purpose in MNCL5
I think I found some more problems with MNCL5 and solved one of them before I even realized it was a problem. Here it is, with some background first.
Originally, MNCL5 had a simple rule stating that omitted arguments (i.e. those which are allowed grammatically but don't appear) are, if anything, indefinite (Note that this is distinct from the implied subjects of non-verb forms). Next, when I was figuring out how to express purpose in MNCL5, I came up with the idea of using an adverbial complement clause containing a subjunctive verb, as in:
Mas kor'yek gil Jonita zo elefantok vidus di.
1-AGT.PL run-IPF-PST CCI John-DIM-PAT.SG 3A-ADJ elephant-THM.SG see-SUB SCT-ADV
"We were running so that Johnny could see the elephant."
For some of the cases where the complement clause shares a referent with the matrix clause, I decided that a prospective aspect participle component with a secondary predicate final would be used, as in:
Jonitak korek zo elefanto vid'vi.
John-DIM-AGT.SG run-PST 3A-ADJ elephant-GEN.SG see-PRO-ADV
"Johnny ran to see the elephant."
(In this example, the secondary predicate final -i is identical to the adverbial final, and has been glossed the same, even though the semantics are different)
However, this leaves some cases where a referent is shared, but the clause can't be replaced by a component (such as when it has too many arguments or an adverbial pharse). I originally used a 3rd person pronoun, or maybe a reflexive pronoun, in the complement clause for the shared referent, but later decided it could be omitted in many cases, even though this would require the omitted argument rule to be modified. Example:
Jona cuzek Tomok gil (zak) Marxa gebus livrok din.
John-PAT.SG choose.PST Tom-THM.SG CCI (3A-AGT.SG) Marsha-PAT.SG give-SUB book-THM.SG SCT-SEC
"John chose Tom to give Marsha a book."
Note that -in (SEC) is used instead of -i (ADV), since the coreferenced argument is Tomok, not Jona.
Recently, I realized that ambiguity could occur if an additional argument were omitted [Assume that there's an adverbial phrase preventing the clause from being replaced by a component].
Jona cuzek Tomok gil gebus livrok [tomorrow] din.
John-PAT.SG choose.PST Tom-THM.SG CCI give-SUB book-THM.SG [tomorrow] SCT-SEC
"John chose Tom to give/be given a book tomorrow."
A couple things could be done: (a) restore the 3rd person pronoun or (b) use an indefinite pronoun for the other omitted argument. But then I came up with something I like better: use a relative clause instead of an adverbial clause. This uses one word fewer than (a) or (b) and is actually more consistent with the grammar. Example:
Jona cuzek Tomok yak gebus livrok [tomorrow] din.
John-PAT.SG choose.PST Tom-THM.SG REL-AGT.SG give-SUB book-THM.SG [tomorrow] SCT-SEC
"John chose Tom to give a book tomorrow."
This also eliminates the need to modify the omitted argument rule!
Originally, MNCL5 had a simple rule stating that omitted arguments (i.e. those which are allowed grammatically but don't appear) are, if anything, indefinite (Note that this is distinct from the implied subjects of non-verb forms). Next, when I was figuring out how to express purpose in MNCL5, I came up with the idea of using an adverbial complement clause containing a subjunctive verb, as in:
Mas kor'yek gil Jonita zo elefantok vidus di.
1-AGT.PL run-IPF-PST CCI John-DIM-PAT.SG 3A-ADJ elephant-THM.SG see-SUB SCT-ADV
"We were running so that Johnny could see the elephant."
For some of the cases where the complement clause shares a referent with the matrix clause, I decided that a prospective aspect participle component with a secondary predicate final would be used, as in:
Jonitak korek zo elefanto vid'vi.
John-DIM-AGT.SG run-PST 3A-ADJ elephant-GEN.SG see-PRO-ADV
"Johnny ran to see the elephant."
(In this example, the secondary predicate final -i is identical to the adverbial final, and has been glossed the same, even though the semantics are different)
However, this leaves some cases where a referent is shared, but the clause can't be replaced by a component (such as when it has too many arguments or an adverbial pharse). I originally used a 3rd person pronoun, or maybe a reflexive pronoun, in the complement clause for the shared referent, but later decided it could be omitted in many cases, even though this would require the omitted argument rule to be modified. Example:
Jona cuzek Tomok gil (zak) Marxa gebus livrok din.
John-PAT.SG choose.PST Tom-THM.SG CCI (3A-AGT.SG) Marsha-PAT.SG give-SUB book-THM.SG SCT-SEC
"John chose Tom to give Marsha a book."
Note that -in (SEC) is used instead of -i (ADV), since the coreferenced argument is Tomok, not Jona.
Recently, I realized that ambiguity could occur if an additional argument were omitted [Assume that there's an adverbial phrase preventing the clause from being replaced by a component].
Jona cuzek Tomok gil gebus livrok [tomorrow] din.
John-PAT.SG choose.PST Tom-THM.SG CCI give-SUB book-THM.SG [tomorrow] SCT-SEC
"John chose Tom to give/be given a book tomorrow."
A couple things could be done: (a) restore the 3rd person pronoun or (b) use an indefinite pronoun for the other omitted argument. But then I came up with something I like better: use a relative clause instead of an adverbial clause. This uses one word fewer than (a) or (b) and is actually more consistent with the grammar. Example:
Jona cuzek Tomok yak gebus livrok [tomorrow] din.
John-PAT.SG choose.PST Tom-THM.SG REL-AGT.SG give-SUB book-THM.SG [tomorrow] SCT-SEC
"John chose Tom to give a book tomorrow."
This also eliminates the need to modify the omitted argument rule!