Let us consider a system whereby definite and indefinite nouns differ in a few ways.
Let us consider the 'root', which might also be the definite form (or maybe the definite form takes some marking, but not particularly much). This needn't be very specific at all: context (i.e. the introduction of the referent) should be sufficient for the speaker to know what it is.
So we might have a lexeme meaning 'vessel'. This includes meanings such as 'ship', 'carriage', 'cart', 'boat', 'sleigh', 'chariot'. When first introducing the noun, some affix is required that specifies its type – and this is almost an open class in the language; there may be a 'generic' affix as well.
Another noun could be 'places in general', including suffixes turning it into 'house, burial ground, ritual place, village gathering place, pasture, ...'
Some nouns may be specific enough in their root form not to require any affixes - this at least applies to body parts, relations, certain types of locations, and certain animals and plants.
Outside of that, however, this system leads to certain problems: easily, many nouns whose definite forms are the same may coexist in a context. Therefore, the language would do well to have some kind of proximate-obviative system in place, or alternatively a definite-specific-indefinite system, where the specific type of noun does distinguish the same distinctions as the indefinite type?
Further, of course, this could combine with restrictions on the case system - the dative might not be permissible as indefinite, the genitive might not have an overt definite, but might be implicitly infinite anyways, the instrumental might lack the plural definite, the locative might not mark for definiteness at all, nor does it carry the distinctions.
Of course, the opposite way around – definite nouns as more semantically definite – could possibly also work.
No comments:
Post a Comment