coding question

[Claire]

Hi all,
How would you like us to code second position complementizer clitics
that can occasionally occur first in the clause? In Bardi there are
things like

Gorn=amb inin niyarra nganarligal.
good=COMP 3sg.be taste 1sg-pst-eat-rec.pst
"Because it tastes good, I ate it."

=(j)amb can occasionally occur initially but it's really marked; the
usual position is second position cliticised to the first word (not
constituent) of the clause.

Claire (Bowern)

[Chris]

You could code it "No" for the properties Complementizer Clause and
Clause Complementizer.

Probably the best option would be to write a new property for
just this case, something like: Complementizer is Second Position
Clitic,
or Complementizer is in Second Position.

Other suggestions anybody?

Complementizer Clause
The property Complementizer Clause has the value "yes" when there is
at least one
complementizer that precedes its clause. As with all word order
properties, we restrict
our attention to productive word order patterns.

Chris

[Arhonto Terzi]

Nevetheless, I think an ungrammatical example should be inserted with the comment that
it becomes grammatical if the Complementizer is in second position.

> You could code it "No" for the properties Complementizer Clause and
> Clause Complementizer.

I am not sure.
The discussion of course reminded me that tge property of the tupe 'Second position clitics'
should be added in the set of properties.
As to whether 'Complementizer in second position' should constitute a separate one, I am really not
sure.

[Chris]

I agree and also an ungrammatical example with a comment would be
helpful.
So the ungrammatical example could be inserted for Complementizer
Clause:No,
with a comment.

Could the good example ALSO be inserted to illustrate the same
property?

Complementizer Clause:No

Gorn=amb inin niyarra nganarligal.
good=COMP 3sg.be taste 1sg-pst-eat-rec.pst
"Because it tastes good, I ate it."

Would it be confusing? How about if a comment is added here too?

BTW, there is no problem with two examples illusrating the same
property.

Here is an emergency measure. Just add this Bardi example under
"Extra Examples" for Bardi this is a category for examples not
associated with any property.
That way at least people would be able to see it.

Maybe we need a series of properties for second position effects. Who
would
be a good person to ask to write these?

Chris

[Daniel Kaufman]

I agree on the no comp-clause and no clause-comp coding of 2P
complementizers. We find both head-final and head-initial elements
taking second position cross-linguistically so 2P is ambiguous w.r.t.
head directionality.
I've been working on the typology of 2P phenomenon for some time so I
can volunteer to start a checklist of 2P properties (only by July
though).
best,
-dan

[Chris]

OK, great.
Please make sure to read the following first:
http://sswl.railsplayground.net/documents/Guidelines_for_Language_Experts.pdf

> > Chris- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Claire Bowern]

Thanks for this everyone.
I agree that a typology of second position phenomena would be better
than subsuming it under (no) comp-clause or (no) clause-comp (not least
because for Australia we need to distinguish languages that have no
complementizers at all from those that have 2P comps).
Claire

[Chris]

But still the Complementizer Clause and Clause Complementizer
properties should be set. One principle of the database property
definitions
is that every property need to be settable for every language. In the
case of
an Australian language with no complementizer (like Mandarin),
Complementizer Clause and Clause Complementizer would be NA (not
applicable):

"NA (Not Applicable): This property is defined for a language if there
are overt complementizers.
If a language does not have overt complementizers, this property has
the value NA."

In the case of a 2P complementizer, then it should probably be
Complementizer Clause:No and Clause Complementizer:No
(since it is neither), with the understanding that soon there
will be a set of 2P properties.

Chris

On Jun 12, 3:37 pm, Claire Bowern <clairebow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for this everyone.
> I agree that a typology of second position phenomena would be better
> than subsuming it under (no) comp-clause or (no) clause-comp (not least
> because for Australia we need to distinguish languages that have no
> complementizers at all from those that have 2P comps).
> Claire
>
>
>
> Chris wrote:
> > OK, great.
> > Please make sure to read the following first:

> >http://sswl.railsplayground.net/documents/Guidelines_for_Language_Exp...

> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -