Typecraft v2.5
Jump to: navigation, search

Difference between revisions of "Classroom talk:LING2208 - Annotating Ga"

(Created page with '<Phrase>41568</Phrase> [http://typecraft.org/TCEditor/2565/ link to Mark's annotated text] When compared to Mark's annotated narration from "Simon's Cat" in Ga, we see that Norw…')
 
(Agreement in Ga vs. Norwegian)
 
(6 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
====Agreement====
 +
 
<Phrase>41568</Phrase> [http://typecraft.org/TCEditor/2565/ link to Mark's annotated text]
 
<Phrase>41568</Phrase> [http://typecraft.org/TCEditor/2565/ link to Mark's annotated text]
 
When compared to Mark's annotated narration from "Simon's Cat" in Ga, we see that Norwegian has significantly more cases of agreement.
 
  
 
<Phrase>41680</Phrase> [http://typecraft.org/TCEditor/2572/ link to Eirik's annotated text]
 
<Phrase>41680</Phrase> [http://typecraft.org/TCEditor/2572/ link to Eirik's annotated text]
 +
 +
In the case of the Norwegian annotation we find that the pronoun "den" and the reflexive pronoun "sin" both refer back to the same entity, the antecedent "hunden" (the dog). The values SINGULAR, 3RD PERSON and COMMON GENDER are part of the content being picked up.
 +
 +
Now, as far as agreement goes, "den" is the controller of the adjectives "trist" og "sulten", for the values SINGULAR and COMMON GENDER.
 +
 +
In the phrase "sin egen dårskap" (its own foolishness) the noun "dårskap" controls both the reflexive and possessive pronouns ("sin" and "egen" respectively) on the values COMMON GENDER and SINGULAR.
 +
 +
When comparing a sentence from Mark's annotated text of his translation of "The dog and his reflection" into Ga with my annotations of the Norwegian translation we see that Norwegian at least in this case has significantly more occurrences of agreement.
 +
In Ga we do find examples of agreement, as Mark states on the main page. However, this agreement seems to be limited to the features PERSON and NUMBER, and seems to apply only to verbs and nouns.
 +
--[[User:Eirik Zahl|Eirik Zahl]] 01:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 +
 +
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 +
 +
====Clause Linkage====
 +
 +
<Phrase>41560</Phrase>
 +
This is indubitably a good example of parataxis, with three syntactically independent clauses. If you want to include further examples of parataxis you could also include the conjunction ''shi'' in sentence 8.
 +
 +
 +
<Phrase>41561</Phrase>
 +
The idiomatic construction ''be mli ni'' seems to me to perform a subordinating function, creating an adverbial clause that is subordinate to the main clause. I would say it is a form of hypotaxis albeit a relatively weak one.
 +
 +
 +
<Phrase>41565</Phrase>
 +
In this sentence the conjunction ''akɛ'' occurs twice and each time after a verb. It seems to have the function of embedding a clause, giving rise to a complex clause. I would say that ''akɛ'' is a complementiser since its presence is required to satiate the valency of the verbs it accompanies. These are example of proper embedding i.e. a strong form of hypotaxis.
 +
 +
 +
<Phrase>41566</Phrase>
 +
In this sentence you have the conjunction ''koni'' which subordinates the following clause. The following verb within the subordinated clause carries no tense, in other words it seems to have become downgraded. A sure sign of subordination and hypotaxis.
 +
 +
--[[User:Anders Lynghaug Haugen|Anders Lynghaug Haugen]] 01:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 01:54, 7 March 2014

Agreement

Eyɔse efufeemɔ feesɛɛ kɛkɛni eyimli ni emli ewola ni erɛɛehoehe, shi ekolɛ ni ehiɛ etɛŋ fe tsutsu.
“He later realized his folly and he left angry and sad, but perhaps a little wiser than before.”
Eyɔse
eyɔse
3SGrealizePAST
V
efufeemɔ
efufeemɔ
POSSfoolishness
N
feesɛɛ
feesɛɛ
later
ADV
kɛkɛni
kɛkɛni
 
CONJC
eyimli
eyimli
3SGwent_away
V
ni
ni
FOC
PRT
emli
emli
POSSinside
N
ewola
ewola
angry
ADJ
ni
ni
FOC
PRT
erɛɛehoehe
erɛɛehoehe
sorrowful
ADJ
shi
shi
 
CONJC
ekolɛ
ekolɛ
perhaps
ADV
ni
ni
FOC
PRT
ehiɛ
ehiɛ
POSSface
N
etɛŋ
etɛŋ
wise
ADJ
fe
fe
CMPR
PRT
tsutsu
tsutsu
before
ADV
link to Mark's annotated text
den innså sin egen dårskap for sent og gikk avsted sulten og trist men kanskje litt klokere
“it realized its own folly too late and walked off, hungry and sad, but perhaps a little wiser”
den
den
3SGCOMMSBJ
PN
innså
inn
 seeVstemPRET
V
sin
sin
REFL3PCOMM
TRUNC
egen
egen
REFLSGCOMM
DET
dårskap
dårskap
foolishNstemnessN>NCOMM
N
for
for
tooDEG
ADVm
sent
sent
lateADJstemNEUT
ADJ
og
og
 
CONJ
gikk
gikk
walkVstemPRET
V
avsted
avsted
aPARTwayN>ADV
ADVplc
sulten
sulten
hungryN>ADJSGCOMM
ADJ
og
og
 
CONJ
trist
trist
sadCOMMSG
ADJ
men
men
 
CONJ
kanskje
kanskje
maybeV>ADVV>ADV
ADV
litt
lit:
a.littleDEG
ADVm
klokere
klokere
wiseADJstemCMPR
ADJ
link to Eirik's annotated text

In the case of the Norwegian annotation we find that the pronoun "den" and the reflexive pronoun "sin" both refer back to the same entity, the antecedent "hunden" (the dog). The values SINGULAR, 3RD PERSON and COMMON GENDER are part of the content being picked up.

Now, as far as agreement goes, "den" is the controller of the adjectives "trist" og "sulten", for the values SINGULAR and COMMON GENDER.

In the phrase "sin egen dårskap" (its own foolishness) the noun "dårskap" controls both the reflexive and possessive pronouns ("sin" and "egen" respectively) on the values COMMON GENDER and SINGULAR.

When comparing a sentence from Mark's annotated text of his translation of "The dog and his reflection" into Ga with my annotations of the Norwegian translation we see that Norwegian at least in this case has significantly more occurrences of agreement. In Ga we do find examples of agreement, as Mark states on the main page. However, this agreement seems to be limited to the features PERSON and NUMBER, and seems to apply only to verbs and nouns. --Eirik Zahl 01:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


Clause Linkage

Ena loohɔlɔ ko shwapo kɛkɛni ebote mli oya kɛkɛni eyaju wu fɛɛfɛo dɔkɔdɔkɔ agbo ko ni ka shɛɛfi lɛ nɔ.
“He saw a butcher's shop and (he) went quickly in and (he) stole a nice fat juicy bone from the shelf.”
Ena
ena
3SGsee
V
loohɔlɔ
loohɔlɔ
butcher
N
ko
ko
INDEF
DET
shwapo
shwapo
shop
N
kɛkɛni
kɛkɛni
 
CONJC
ebote
ebote
3SGenterPAST
V
mli
mli
inside
Nrel
oya
oya
quickly
ADV
kɛkɛni
kɛkɛni
 
CONJC
eyaju
eyaju
3SGPASTsteal
V
wu
wu
bone
N
fɛɛfɛo
fɛɛfɛo
nice
ADJ
dɔkɔdɔkɔ
dɔkɔdɔkɔ
sweet
ADJ
agbo
agbo
big
ADJ
ko
ko
INDEF
DET
ni
ni
FOC
PRT
ka
ka
layPAST
V
shɛɛfi
shɛɛfi
shelf
N
FOC
PRT
surfaceLOC
N

This is indubitably a good example of parataxis, with three syntactically independent clauses. If you want to include further examples of parataxis you could also include the conjunction shi in sentence 8.


Be mli ni eekpe wu lɛ kɛ miishɛɛ, etsefoi kɛbote koo lɛ mli.
“While he was happily chewing the bone, he ran into the forest.”
Be
be
time
N
mli
mli
inside
Nrel
ni
ni
FOC
PRT
eekpe
eekpe
3SGPROGchew
V
wu
wu
bone
N
FOC
PRT
 
PRT
miishɛɛ
miishɛɛ
happinessADJ>N
N
etsefoi
etsefoi
3SGrun_awayPAST
V
kɛbote
kɛbote
enterPAST
V
Koo
koo
forest
N
FOC
PRT
mli
mli
inside
Nrel

The idiomatic construction be mli ni seems to me to perform a subordinating function, creating an adverbial clause that is subordinate to the main clause. I would say it is a form of hypotaxis albeit a relatively weak one.


Gbee amiyelɔ fee eyiŋ akɛ eetao wu kloklo lɛ hu, nohewɔɔ ebo ni eekpagbɛ akɛ gbee kloklo lɛ yɛ faa mli baaŋmɛɛ ewu lɛ he ejaakɛ eeshegbeyei.
“The greedy dog made his mind that he wanted that bone also, so he growled expecting that the other dog in the river would drop his bone because of fear.”
gbee
gbee
dog
N
amiyelɔ
amiyelɔ
greedy
ADJ
fee
fee
makePAST
V
eyiŋ
eyiŋ
POSSmind
N
akɛ
akɛ
 
CONJ
eetao
eetao
3SGPROGwantPAST
V
wu
wu
bone
N
kloklo
kloklo
different
ADJ
FOC
PRT
hu
hu
also
ADV
nohewɔɔ
nohewɔɔ
 
CONJ
ebo
ebo
3SGbarkPAST
V
ni
ni
FOC
PRT
eekpagbɛ
eekpagbɛ
3SGPROGexpect
V
akɛ
akɛ
 
CONJ
gbee
gbee
dog
N
kloklo
kloklo
different
ADJ
FOC
PRT
 
PRT
faa
faa
river
N
mli
mli
inside
Nrel
baaŋmɛɛ
baaŋmɛɛ
FUTlet_go
V
ewu
ewu
POSSbone
N
FOC
PRT
he
he
 
PRT
ejaakɛ
ejaakɛ
 
CONJS
eeshegbeyei
eeshegbeyei
3SGPROGfear
N

In this sentence the conjunction akɛ occurs twice and each time after a verb. It seems to have the function of embedding a clause, giving rise to a complex clause. I would say that akɛ is a complementiser since its presence is required to satiate the valency of the verbs it accompanies. These are example of proper embedding i.e. a strong form of hypotaxis.


Ebaakɔ wu kloklo lɛ kɛkɛni ekɛ wui enyɔ baajofoi, shi be mli ni ebo waa koni ekɛwo gbee kloklo lɛ hegbeyei, wu ni yɔɔ edaaŋ gbee faa mli ni enaaa dɔŋŋ.
“He would grab the other bone and would ran away with two bones, but as he gave out a loud snore in order to scare the other dog, the bone in his mouth fell into the river, not to be seen again. ”
Ebaakɔ
ebaa
3SGFUTtake
V
wu
wu
bone
N
kloklo
kloklo
different
ADJ
FOC
PRT
kɛkɛni
kɛkɛni
 
CONJC
ekɛ
ekɛ
 
AUX
wui
wui
bonePL
N
enyɔ
enyɔ
NUM>N
N
baajofoi
baajofoi
FUTrun
V
shi
shi
 
CONJC
be
be
time
N
mli
mli
inside
Nrel
ni
ni
FOC
PRT
ebo
ebo
3SGbark
V
waa
waa
loudly
ADV
koni
koni
 
CONJS
ekɛwo
ekɛwo
3SGmake
V
gbee
gbee
dog
N
kloklo
kloklo
different
ADJ
FOC
PRT
hegbeyei
hegbeyei
afraid
ADJ
wu
wu
bone
N
ni
ni
FOC
PRT
yɔɔ
yɔɔ
 
PRT
edaaŋ
edaaŋ
POSSmouth
N
gbee
gbee
fallPAST
V
faa
faa
river
N
mli
mli
inside
Nrel
ni
ni
FOC
PRT
enaaa
enaaa
3SGseeNEG
V
dɔŋŋ
dɔŋŋ
again
ADV

In this sentence you have the conjunction koni which subordinates the following clause. The following verb within the subordinated clause carries no tense, in other words it seems to have become downgraded. A sure sign of subordination and hypotaxis.

--Anders Lynghaug Haugen 01:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)