Made me run vs. sent me flying

A forum for discussing linguistics or just languages in general.
Post Reply
Khemehekis
runic
runic
Posts: 3160
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 09:36
Location: California über alles

Made me run vs. sent me flying

Post by Khemehekis »

Consider the following Kankonian sentences:

Vugis hazien az is adaten.
snake make-PST that 1sg run-PST
The snake made me run.

I fuiras az ar nasuos.
1sg want-PRS that 2sg come-FUT
I want you to come.

Mahan ar hemeyos az zhered ad is e*aus?
INTERR 2sg let-FUT that brother to 1sg enter-FUT
Will you let my brother enter?

Ans wailis id ham ili seress az hames pivas meshas ma dani?
how director done_to that show keep-PRS that that-PL girl-PL look-PRS so hip
How does the director of that TV show keep the girls looking so hip?

Harg pfushen az is koiloaren zipi pomosh.
goat send-PST that 1sg make_one's_trajectory-PST through air
The goat sent me flying through the air.

In the previous five sentences, "to run", "to come", "to enter", "to look" and "to fly" are all conjugated for tense in Kankonian; none of them is in the infinitive. But in English, "run", "come" and "enter" in in the infinitive after "to make", "to want" and "to let", whereas "looking" and "flying" take -ing after "to keep" and "to send". Why does English place some verbs in the infinitive and make other verbs participial in sentences like these?
♂♥♂♀

Squirrels chase koi . . . chase squirrels

My Kankonian-English dictionary: 79,516 words and counting

31,416: The number of the conlanging beast!
Rainchild
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 144
Joined: 03 Nov 2011 05:14

Re: Made me run vs. sent me flying

Post by Rainchild »

1. I don't think that there is any general semantic or syntactic reason. Some English verbs take infinitive complement clauses and other English verbs take gerund clause (not participle) complement clauses. Then, of course, there are plain old "that" complement clauses. Some people might say that these differences are "marked in the lexicon," but for descriptive purposes, that amounts to saying that one must simply memorize which verbs take infinitive complements and which take participle complements.

2. Here's a nice run-down on complement clauses in English: http://sites.hamline.edu/~./srundquist/Slec11a.html

3. Now let's remember that verbs in your conlang, there can be fewer or more types of complement clauses than we have in English. It's up to you, really. In my own conlangs, I tend to have one type of complement clause. But if you wanted to, you could have more than three!

Hope this helps.
“If they give you ruled paper, write the other way.” --Juan Ramon Jimenez
User avatar
gestaltist
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1612
Joined: 11 Feb 2015 11:23

Re: Made me run vs. sent me flying

Post by gestaltist »

I think it comes down to the difference between a relative clause and the „accusative and infinitive“ construction.

Kankonian uses a relative clause, as do Slavic languages for another example. As Rainchild said, a relative clause is a sentence and thus gets conjugated.

The „accusative and infinitive“ construction isn’t that clearly distinguishable in English because there is no declension left to mark it. Check out the Wikipedia article to learn more about it. It is really fun in Latin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accusative_and_infinitive
User avatar
Imralu
roman
roman
Posts: 896
Joined: 17 Nov 2013 22:32

Re: Made me run vs. sent me flying

Post by Imralu »

gestaltist wrote:I think it comes down to the difference between a relative clause and the „accusative and infinitive“ construction.

Kankonian uses a relative clause, as do Slavic languages for another example. As Rainchild said, a relative clause is a sentence and thus gets conjugated.

The „accusative and infinitive“ construction isn’t that clearly distinguishable in English because there is no declension left to mark it. Check out the Wikipedia article to learn more about it. It is really fun in Latin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accusative_and_infinitive
They're not relative clauses. The "that" in the English translation is a complementiser (complementizer if you will), not a relative pronoun. The word that just happens to be able to take both roles.
Glossing Abbreviations: COMP = comparative, C = complementiser, ACS / ICS = accessible / inaccessible, GDV = gerundive, SPEC / NSPC = specific / non-specific, AG = agent, E = entity (person, animal, thing)
________
MY MUSIC | MY PLANTS
User avatar
gestaltist
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1612
Joined: 11 Feb 2015 11:23

Re: Made me run vs. sent me flying

Post by gestaltist »

Imralu wrote:
gestaltist wrote:I think it comes down to the difference between a relative clause and the „accusative and infinitive“ construction.

Kankonian uses a relative clause, as do Slavic languages for another example. As Rainchild said, a relative clause is a sentence and thus gets conjugated.

The „accusative and infinitive“ construction isn’t that clearly distinguishable in English because there is no declension left to mark it. Check out the Wikipedia article to learn more about it. It is really fun in Latin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accusative_and_infinitive
They're not relative clauses. The "that" in the English translation is a complementiser (complementizer if you will), not a relative pronoun. The word that just happens to be able to take both roles.
Yeah... Is the term „subordinate clause“ good enough for you? I am not sure which type these are. Noun clauses? Adverbial clauses?
User avatar
Lao Kou
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 5089
Joined: 25 Nov 2012 10:39
Location: 蘇州/苏州

Re: Made me run vs. sent me flying

Post by Lao Kou »

Just to further muddy the waters [>:)] :

I like frying squid lips in butter.
I like to fry squid lips in butter.

I like squid lips frying in butter.
I like squid lips to fry in butter.

I keep sheep grazing in the fields.
I keep sheep to feed my family.

My boss sent me flying through the air.
My boss sent me to talk to you.

I left him panning for gold.
I left him to pan for gold. (= that he might pan for gold)
I left him to pan for gold. (= that I might pan for gold)

Fire up them sentence diagrams; your 9th grade English teacher is here. [>:)]
道可道,非常道
名可名,非常名
User avatar
Imralu
roman
roman
Posts: 896
Joined: 17 Nov 2013 22:32

Re: Made me run vs. sent me flying

Post by Imralu »

gestaltist wrote:Yeah... Is the term „subordinate clause“ good enough for you? I am not sure which type these are. Noun clauses? Adverbial clauses?
Yep, "subordinate clause" works too, but it's more general. That includes relative clauses, complementiser clauses and a whole lot of other types of clauses.

In the sentences in the original post, the complementiser clause essentially functions as the object of the verb, so they're essentially functioning as nouns, although I'm not sure that "noun clauses" would really properly describe them.
Glossing Abbreviations: COMP = comparative, C = complementiser, ACS / ICS = accessible / inaccessible, GDV = gerundive, SPEC / NSPC = specific / non-specific, AG = agent, E = entity (person, animal, thing)
________
MY MUSIC | MY PLANTS
Post Reply