|
|
| Line 4: |
Line 4: |
| | =1.Structual Elements= | | =1.Structual Elements= |
| | The three components of Noun and NP modification as advocated by Greenbaum.S& Quick.R's <ref> Greenbaum.S& Quick.R.(2007:363) A Student's Grammar of the English Language.Longman,England.</ref> (2007), which i think apply to RR since it is also an SVO word order language.These include; The Head of the NP,Its premodification, and Postmodification. | | The three components of Noun and NP modification as advocated by Greenbaum.S& Quick.R's <ref> Greenbaum.S& Quick.R.(2007:363) A Student's Grammar of the English Language.Longman,England.</ref> (2007), which i think apply to RR since it is also an SVO word order language.These include; The Head of the NP,Its premodification, and Postmodification. |
| − | In line to the above, i think it is important to have examples of both simple RR NPs like <Phrase>16793</Phrase> and complex RR NPS like <Phrase>16804</Phrase>. or <Phrase>20082</Phrase> | + | In line to the above, i think it is important to have examples of both simple RR NPs like <Phrase>16793</Phrase> and complex RR NPS like <Phrase>16804</Phrase>. and <Phrase>20082</Phrase> |
| − | The above can help us to compare their elements and even see how far the RR NP can stretch. | + | The above can help us to compare elements which modify RR NP and even gauge how far these elements may strech in modifying the RR NP. |
| | =2.Semantic implications= | | =2.Semantic implications= |
| | As you go on to find the possible semantic implications of shifting positions of elements within RR NP, bear in mind that some NP may involve incompatible semantic features, therefore this is likely to limit the supposedly multiple meaning a NP may attract. Rugemalira J. M. (2007), has it that Semantic considerations may indicate that two elements cannot co-occur. | | As you go on to find the possible semantic implications of shifting positions of elements within RR NP, bear in mind that some NP may involve incompatible semantic features, therefore this is likely to limit the supposedly multiple meaning a NP may attract. Rugemalira J. M. (2007), has it that Semantic considerations may indicate that two elements cannot co-occur. |
Revision as of 13:29, 22 May 2011
Thank you for your article about Bantu noun phrases especially as you specifically focus on RR NP.Its good you highlighted some dependant elements which modify RR nouns as seen from your example, http://typecraft.org/tc2wiki/Special:TypeCraft/Editor/1078/12865
As you continue to develop the article with your focus of finding out and comparing the elements which modify RR nouns,or even RR NPs themselves,can we put the following in consideration;
1.Structual Elements
The three components of Noun and NP modification as advocated by Greenbaum.S& Quick.R's [1] (2007), which i think apply to RR since it is also an SVO word order language.These include; The Head of the NP,Its premodification, and Postmodification.
In line to the above, i think it is important to have examples of both simple RR NPs like
Enkyende emwe
“One monkey”
| Enkyende |
| e | n | kyende |
| IV | 9 | monkey |
| N |
and complex RR NPS like
Buri ibara kitabo kyona ekyangye ekihango munonga
“Every book of mine that is very big”
| ekyangye |
| e | ky | angye |
| DEF | 7 | mine |
| PNposs |
| ekihango |
| e | ki | hango |
| DEF | 7 | big |
| ADJ |
. and
omukazi muraingwa ogwo oyemereire omushonda y'enju owaanyiiga ahabwokuba waasheka n'omwishiki muhango mugufu oshutami aha kitebe ekyo ekikuzire
“That tall woman standing in the corner of the house who has become angry because you have laughed with the short big girl seated on that old stool”
| omukazi |
| o | mu | kazi |
| IV | 1 | woman |
| N |
| muraingwa |
| mu | raingwa |
| 1 | tall |
| ADJ |
| ogwo |
| o | gw | o |
| IV | 1AGR | thatMEDIAL |
| DEM |
| oyemereire |
| o | yemere | ire |
| 2SG | stand | PROG |
| V |
| owaanyiiga |
| owa | a | nyiig | a |
| whoREL | PASTim | become-angry | IND |
| REL |
| ahabwokuba |
| ahabwokuba |
| because |
| CONJ |
| waasheka |
| wa | a | shek | a |
| 2SG | PASTim | laugh | IND |
| V |
| omwishiki |
| o | mu | ishiki |
| IV | 1 | girl |
| N |
| oshutami |
| o | shutam | i |
| 2SG | sit | |
| V |
| ekikuzire |
| e | ki | kuz | ire |
| 7 | 3SG | old | STAT |
| V |
The above can help us to compare elements which modify RR NP and even gauge how far these elements may strech in modifying the RR NP.
2.Semantic implications
As you go on to find the possible semantic implications of shifting positions of elements within RR NP, bear in mind that some NP may involve incompatible semantic features, therefore this is likely to limit the supposedly multiple meaning a NP may attract. Rugemalira J. M. (2007), has it that Semantic considerations may indicate that two elements cannot co-occur.
According to Rugemalira J. M.[2](2007:325),because of semantic restrictions on the co-occurrence of the elements of the noun phrase, it is reasonable to argue that it is not possible to expand the phrase indefinitely since the restrictions have a cumulative effect
References
- ↑ Greenbaum.S& Quick.R.(2007:363) A Student's Grammar of the English Language.Longman,England.
- ↑ Rugemalira J. M.(2007)The Structure of the Bantu Noun Phrase
University of Dar es Salaam, http://www.soas.ac.uk/linguistics/research/workingpapers/volume-15/file37804.pdf /