Rawàng Ata: quick feedback on a couple of diachronic syntax issues?
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:58 pm
For context, Rawàng Ata is my long-gestating conlang, to some extent inspired (rather unscientifically) by Austronesian languages. Its verb system and alignment have always been ridiculously weird - not actually an Austronesian system at all (in some ways related, in other ways almost the opposite). Over the years, i've tweaked some of the details, and I've also repeatedly struggled to produce a coherent diachronic justification of its weirdness (beyond "it was a long time ago, I wanted something weird, and this seemed intuitively weird for some reason"). Lately I've been thinking about it again.
I don't have a big proper write-up for you, but I wanted to run some developments past you and see what you thought about how plausible (and/or interesting) they were. For now, we're ignoring a lot of confusing additional bits and focusing purely on bivalent, simple, fully-verby verbs.
As Rawàng Ata's diachronics have undergone many revisions, I'll stay clear of 'actual' historical forms altogether for now, and I'll just use illustrative "English" (or mangled English) equivalents, or glosses where it seems necessary. This isn't to imply that there is an exact one-to-one semantic or syntactic correspondance to the English example - I'm just trying to illustrate accessibly the general principles.
Chip in with any comments or questions you may have!
-------------------------------
1. "Original" pronoun dropping/non-dropping
Long ago, the ancestor of RA, let's call it RA-1 had a straightforward SVO syntax. Verbal agreement marking was very limited - only subjects were marked, and most markings had either been lost already or would end up being lost in fairly short order (and won't be discussed further here). It also had optional topicalisation through fronting, and even some topics that weren't verbal arguments.
RA-1 had some compulsory pronouns. In fact, let's take a step back to RA-0. In RA-0, it was necessary to include a pronoun to refer to a core verbal argument when any of these were true:
a) the argument was 1st or 2nd person (I ate the biscuit; the dog bit you)
b) the argument was a 3rd person meriting particular respect, in which case honorific pronouns were used. (not "the dog bit the judge" but the dog bit his honour the judge
c) the argument was a 3rd person that had been topicalised (not "(as for) the sailor, the dog bit" or "(as for) the boy, ate the biscuit", but the sailor, the dog bit him and the boy, he ate the biscuit.
--------
Now, by RA-1, this had developed in three ways. Firstly, because rule b) was closely associated with politeness, it came to be generalised: whenever EITHER argument required an honorific pronoun, BOTH arguments used pronouns. Similarly, rule a) had often been ignored in informal contexts, and hence was likewise associated with politeness, and the generalisation of rule b) was extended to generalise rule a): whenever EITHER argument was 1st or 2nd person, BOTH arguments required a pronoun. Hence the dog he bit you, I ate it the biscuit and the dog he bit his honour the judge, alongside plain the dog bit the boy.
Secondly, some pronouns required only by topicalisation (i.e. not by the above politeness rules) were dropped. Specifically, a topic-agreement pronoun was dropped when all of these were true:
- the topic was the agent
- the agent was animate
- the patient was inanimate
Thus: the boy, bit the apple; but the apple, the boy bit it (topic is not agent), the apple, it choked the boy (topic/agent is not animate), and the boy, they bit the man (patient is not inanimate).
These restrictions can be explained by noting that an animate agent-topic acting on an inanimate patient is the 'default' situation, the most expected situation, and hence is less in need of marking - the roles can be assumed from context easily. Whenever this 'default' is departed from, however, RA-1 insists on a pronoun to reduce ambiguity (and reassure the listener that she's heard correctly, something unusual is happening).
Thirdly, and finally, a new politeness rule developed in RA-1: where a topic referred to a woman, a pronoun was required for politeness, and if there was none, because of the dropping rule above, a particular female pronoun had to be added (by repurposing a word meaning 'dear one') - that is, the girl, dear one bit the apple. However, where a pronoun was already present, it was not replaced - thus the girl, they bit the man. Unlike the original politeness rules that mandated pronouns for both arguments, this much milder rule had no broader consequences.
------------------
So to recap, in RA-1, pronouns are used (whether or not a coreferential noun is present):
- for both arguments, when either argument is 1st person, 2nd person, or an honorific 3rd person
- otherwise, when an argument has been topicalised, provided that the topicalised argument is not an animate male agent acting upon an inanimate patient.
Otherwise, pronouns are not used.
[personal pronouns, to be clear. Of course, other sorts of pronoun can also be used when required]
---------------------
I appreciate that this system is somewhat odd, but to me it seems intuitive, in that it's the result of several intuitive and I think cross-linguistically not uncommon principles: corefential pronouns for topics, pronoun dropping in the prototypical scenario, politeness triggered by the use of certain pronouns, and politeness requiring the use of pronouns (including where necessary honorific pronouns) for all parties.
The oddest thing might be that last principle, given that politeness is often said to involve avoiding pronouns. But it should be remembered that these 'pronouns' will often be honorifics (or the opposite). Hence, instead of "the boy bit the judge", it would be the boy, this lowly one, bit his honour the judge.
Does this make sense, do you think, both in terms of how I've explained it and in terms of what's going on?
I don't have a big proper write-up for you, but I wanted to run some developments past you and see what you thought about how plausible (and/or interesting) they were. For now, we're ignoring a lot of confusing additional bits and focusing purely on bivalent, simple, fully-verby verbs.
As Rawàng Ata's diachronics have undergone many revisions, I'll stay clear of 'actual' historical forms altogether for now, and I'll just use illustrative "English" (or mangled English) equivalents, or glosses where it seems necessary. This isn't to imply that there is an exact one-to-one semantic or syntactic correspondance to the English example - I'm just trying to illustrate accessibly the general principles.
Chip in with any comments or questions you may have!
-------------------------------
1. "Original" pronoun dropping/non-dropping
Long ago, the ancestor of RA, let's call it RA-1 had a straightforward SVO syntax. Verbal agreement marking was very limited - only subjects were marked, and most markings had either been lost already or would end up being lost in fairly short order (and won't be discussed further here). It also had optional topicalisation through fronting, and even some topics that weren't verbal arguments.
RA-1 had some compulsory pronouns. In fact, let's take a step back to RA-0. In RA-0, it was necessary to include a pronoun to refer to a core verbal argument when any of these were true:
a) the argument was 1st or 2nd person (I ate the biscuit; the dog bit you)
b) the argument was a 3rd person meriting particular respect, in which case honorific pronouns were used. (not "the dog bit the judge" but the dog bit his honour the judge
c) the argument was a 3rd person that had been topicalised (not "(as for) the sailor, the dog bit" or "(as for) the boy, ate the biscuit", but the sailor, the dog bit him and the boy, he ate the biscuit.
--------
Now, by RA-1, this had developed in three ways. Firstly, because rule b) was closely associated with politeness, it came to be generalised: whenever EITHER argument required an honorific pronoun, BOTH arguments used pronouns. Similarly, rule a) had often been ignored in informal contexts, and hence was likewise associated with politeness, and the generalisation of rule b) was extended to generalise rule a): whenever EITHER argument was 1st or 2nd person, BOTH arguments required a pronoun. Hence the dog he bit you, I ate it the biscuit and the dog he bit his honour the judge, alongside plain the dog bit the boy.
Secondly, some pronouns required only by topicalisation (i.e. not by the above politeness rules) were dropped. Specifically, a topic-agreement pronoun was dropped when all of these were true:
- the topic was the agent
- the agent was animate
- the patient was inanimate
Thus: the boy, bit the apple; but the apple, the boy bit it (topic is not agent), the apple, it choked the boy (topic/agent is not animate), and the boy, they bit the man (patient is not inanimate).
These restrictions can be explained by noting that an animate agent-topic acting on an inanimate patient is the 'default' situation, the most expected situation, and hence is less in need of marking - the roles can be assumed from context easily. Whenever this 'default' is departed from, however, RA-1 insists on a pronoun to reduce ambiguity (and reassure the listener that she's heard correctly, something unusual is happening).
Thirdly, and finally, a new politeness rule developed in RA-1: where a topic referred to a woman, a pronoun was required for politeness, and if there was none, because of the dropping rule above, a particular female pronoun had to be added (by repurposing a word meaning 'dear one') - that is, the girl, dear one bit the apple. However, where a pronoun was already present, it was not replaced - thus the girl, they bit the man. Unlike the original politeness rules that mandated pronouns for both arguments, this much milder rule had no broader consequences.
------------------
So to recap, in RA-1, pronouns are used (whether or not a coreferential noun is present):
- for both arguments, when either argument is 1st person, 2nd person, or an honorific 3rd person
- otherwise, when an argument has been topicalised, provided that the topicalised argument is not an animate male agent acting upon an inanimate patient.
Otherwise, pronouns are not used.
[personal pronouns, to be clear. Of course, other sorts of pronoun can also be used when required]
---------------------
I appreciate that this system is somewhat odd, but to me it seems intuitive, in that it's the result of several intuitive and I think cross-linguistically not uncommon principles: corefential pronouns for topics, pronoun dropping in the prototypical scenario, politeness triggered by the use of certain pronouns, and politeness requiring the use of pronouns (including where necessary honorific pronouns) for all parties.
The oddest thing might be that last principle, given that politeness is often said to involve avoiding pronouns. But it should be remembered that these 'pronouns' will often be honorifics (or the opposite). Hence, instead of "the boy bit the judge", it would be the boy, this lowly one, bit his honour the judge.
Does this make sense, do you think, both in terms of how I've explained it and in terms of what's going on?