1
0
Fork 0

docs(eittlandic): merge syntax and functional system into grammar

This commit is contained in:
Lucien Cartier-Tilet 2023-05-25 09:38:02 +02:00
parent 2ff36c0af6
commit 46e2b210c4
Signed by: phundrak
GPG Key ID: BD7789E705CB8DCA
3 changed files with 43 additions and 45 deletions

View File

@ -43,8 +43,8 @@ export default defineUserConfig({
link: '/eittlandic/phonology',
},
{
text: 'Syntax',
link: '/eittlandic/syntax',
text: 'Grammar',
link: '/eittlandic/grammar',
},
{
text: 'Dictionary',

View File

@ -1,42 +0,0 @@
#+setupfile: ../headers
* Functional System :noexport:
** Grammatical Relationship
# Examplify some simple intransitive, transitive, and ditransitive
# clauses. Three-argument clauses may not unequivocally exist.
# - What are the grammatical erlations of this language? Give
# morphosyntactic evidence for each one that you propose.
# - Subject?
# - Ergative?
# - Absolutive?
# - Direct object?
# - Indirect object?
# There are basically four possible sources of evidence for
# grammatical relations:
# - morphological case on NPs
# - person marking on verbs
# - constituent ord
# - some pragmatic hierarchy
# - Is the system of grammatical relations in basic (affirmative,
# declarative) clauses organized according to a
# nominative/accusative, ergative/absolutive, tripartite, or some
# other system?
# - Is there a split system for organizing grammatical relations? If
# so, what determin
# - Is there split instransitivity? If so, what semantic or
# discourse/pragmatic factor conditions the split?
# - Does the system for pronouns and/or person marking on verbs
# operate on the same basis as that of full NPs?
# - Are there different grammatical-relation systems depending on
# the clause type (e.g. main vs. dependent clauses, affirmative
# vs. negative clauses)?
# - Are there different grammatical-relation assignment systems
# depending on th
# - Are there any syntactic processes (e.g. conjunction reduction,
# relativization) that operate on an ergative/absolutive basis?
** Constructions Link
** Valence Increase
*** Causative
*** Applicative
*** Dative Shift
*** Dative Interest
*** External Possession

View File

@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
#+setupfile: ../headers
* Syntax
* Grammar
** Word Structure :noexport:
** Word Classes
*** Nouns :noexport:
@ -413,3 +413,43 @@ in number and gender.
*** Non-Finite
*** Semi-Finite
*** Finite
** Grammatical Relationship :noexport:
# Examplify some simple intransitive, transitive, and ditransitive
# clauses. Three-argument clauses may not unequivocally exist.
# - What are the grammatical erlations of this language? Give
# morphosyntactic evidence for each one that you propose.
# - Subject?
# - Ergative?
# - Absolutive?
# - Direct object?
# - Indirect object?
# There are basically four possible sources of evidence for
# grammatical relations:
# - morphological case on NPs
# - person marking on verbs
# - constituent ord
# - some pragmatic hierarchy
# - Is the system of grammatical relations in basic (affirmative,
# declarative) clauses organized according to a
# nominative/accusative, ergative/absolutive, tripartite, or some
# other system?
# - Is there a split system for organizing grammatical relations? If
# so, what determin
# - Is there split instransitivity? If so, what semantic or
# discourse/pragmatic factor conditions the split?
# - Does the system for pronouns and/or person marking on verbs
# operate on the same basis as that of full NPs?
# - Are there different grammatical-relation systems depending on
# the clause type (e.g. main vs. dependent clauses, affirmative
# vs. negative clauses)?
# - Are there different grammatical-relation assignment systems
# depending on th
# - Are there any syntactic processes (e.g. conjunction reduction,
# relativization) that operate on an ergative/absolutive basis?
** Constructions Link :noexport:
** Valence Increase :noexport:
*** Causative
*** Applicative
*** Dative Shift
*** Dative Interest
*** External Possession