response to dwolff on subject/object

[Logical Language Group <cbmvax!uunet!GREBYN.COM!pucc.PRINCETON.EDU!lojbab>]

DWolff writes (via Bruce Gilson on conlang):
>I've been watching the conlang discussion and your comments about E******o.
>Since Intal and other conlangs don't use an accusative, how do they
>distinguish between subject and object? I'd assume they use word order,
>like English, but I don't want to discuss a possibly-false assumption.

The question of subject and object partially depends on what the terms
mean.  Non-Indo-European languages have structures 'like' subject and
object but not necessarily exactly the same.  I'll answer the question
for Loglan/Lojban, throwing in some of the associated terms that comprise
what we call 'subject' in this type of discussion.  I am interested in
other conlangs that account for non-universality of European 'subject'.

Loglan/Lojban is essentially a word order language for determining the
relative meanings/relations of predicate arguments ('objects').  In a
predicate language there is no such thing as 'subject', only a
collection of related objects.  The place ordering of Lojban predicates
is significant, and often, but not always, the order of the places
corresponds to the normal Indo-European case pattern of
agent-passive-etc.  So usually the first argument is the 'agent' that
corresponds to the Indo-European 'subject'.  Other non-Indo European
languages use 'ergative' constructions, wherein the thing at the front of
the sentence isn't normally the 'agent', and it gets much harder to say
what 'the subject' is.

That first argument has a special role in the language, which
corresponds to 'subject', but isn't really the same thing.
Specifically, the use of a descriptor/article like 'le' with a predicate
'describes'/picks up the meaning of the current 'first place' which
corresponds to the 'subject'.

I'll throw in another couple of terms here, topic and focus.  Topic is
that which you are talking about, and focus is the information in the
sentence which is emphasized for the listener.  In European languages,
topic is almost always identical to subject, but Japanese explicitly
separates the two.  In Lojban, topic is generally that first argument
place, but a separate topic can be emphasized by using a 'prenex', which
is similar to the formal logic structure before a statement.  The result
translates roughly to:  "As to the accusative, Loglan/Lojban has only
object cases." where "the accusative" is the topic.  Focus in Lojban is
indicated almost totally by position.  Primary focus is on the beginning
of the sentence, secondary focus on the end of the sentence.  English
also uses emphatic stress to obtain non-standard focus.  Loglan/Lojban
uses attitudinal indicators, and Lojban in addition has an emphasis word
"ba'e".  Certain unusual structures may catch listener focus as well by
their very presence.

So how does all this apply?  For the standard English sentence "John goes to
the market in the car."

la djan. klama le zarci  fu        le karce
x1 goer  go    x2 market x5(marked)transport mode

x1 can be called the 'subject' because "le klama" gives "the go-er".  It
is also the topic and the primary focus in this sentence, with "the car"
as secondary focus, presumably significant information because it is
last in the sentence and because to include it, the speaker had to mark
it explicitly with "fu"

You may turn a sentence around into a 'passive voice' using "se" and
related words, which changes the numbering as well as position ("se"
exchanges the x1 and x2 giving:

le zarci  cu se klama la djan.  fu        le karce
x1 market |  gone-to  x2 go-er  x5(marked)transport mode

'le se klama' would then refer to this new x1, the destination or
'market', which now may be thought of as the 'subject'.  In European
languages, the the 'subject' remains the 'go-er' in the passive voice.

But since even given only the last sentence you can still say 'le klama'
to pick up 'the go-er' or even 'le xe klama' to pick up 'the mode of
transport', or even 'le te klama' for 'the origin' that isn;t even
stated in the sentence, it is logically more correct to think of all of
these arguments as logically equal, making the identification of one as
'subject' a convention rather than a basic rule of the language.

A different kind of reaarangement is possible, using the argument numbering
words similar to "fu" used in the above - "fu" always means that the x5
argument is about to follow, "fa" the x1, "fe" the x2, etc.  So I can say:

fu        le karce       cu klama fe le zarci fa la djan.
x5(marked)transport mode |  go    x2 market   x1 goer
The car as carrier, goes, to the market, John (goes).

This means exactly the same thing, but focus is on the x5 place up front
both by unusualness and by position.  But by every other criteria,
'John' is still the 'subject', the agent, and the sentence is not in the
passive voice.

Lojban allows the arguments to be expressed on either side of the
predicate with no change in meaning, only in emphasis.  So

la djan. le zarci  cu klama fu        le karce
x1 goer  x2 market |  go    x5(marked)transport mode
John, to the market, goes via car.

This puts focus on the unusual position of the x2.  Thus in a sense, both
x1 and x2 share the properties of 'subject'.  But x1 still alone has
the special role of descriptor assignment.

You can omit arguments in Lojban by putting in a filler word "zo'e" for
each.  You can also express them on either side of the predicate, giving
SVO SOV and VSO orders.  If you omit all arguments from before the verb
either by putting them afterwards, or just by skipping them, the result
is called 'the observative'.  Primary focus is placed on the predicate
relationship which presumably is being commented on, and not on any
'subject'.  This happens inherently with VSO order, of course, but can
also hapopen in SVO order with the subject skipped, and SOV with both
subject and object skipped.

Usually when this is done, the x1 place is so obvious from context that
it is just skipped.  The 'observative' is normally used by a speaker
wishing to call attention to the predicated event because she/he/it is
actually then 'observing it'.  This corresponds to the English 'Smoke!',
which is indeterminate as to SVO, SOV, or VSO order, since there is no
subject or object.

But the omitted x1 place is still 'the subject' in having the normal
special role.  Indeed, you can skip it without putting in a filler word
if you are using the normal order and continuing with x2 after the
predicate:

         klama le zarci  fu        le karce
         go    x2 market x5(marked)transport mode
Look! A go-er to the market by car.

And you can use 'fa' to explicitly identify the x1 after the predicate
but it is still the 'subject', having secondary focus because it is unusual
to express the x1 in an observative:

         klama fa la djan. le zarci  fu        le karce
         go    x1 go-er    x2 market x5(marked)transport mode
Look! A go-er, John, to the market by car.

But John is still the 'subject' by special role of x1.

Finally an example of topic - let us say we are thinking about going to the
park in the car.  Someone might then say.

le panka zo'u la djan. klama le zarci  fu        le karce
the park :    x1 goer  go    x2 market x5(marked)transport mode
As to the park, John is going to the market in the car.

We then recognize the semantic contrast between 'park' and 'market',
putting focus on the 'market' (we would normally in English also put
emphasis on 'market' in this usage; such stress isn't obligatory in
Lojban, but can be useful when the semantics is muddy, so that someone
doesn't contrast 'park' with 'John' or 'car'.  The stress would be
properly placed by preceding "zarci" with "ba'e".  But note that the
same sentence could be said after agreeing to go to the park in the car,
to imply that the park is the unspecified x3 origin of John's going.

I welcome And to correct me if I've misused the linguistic terms
'topic', 'focus', etc.  But I wanted to answer the question noting that
the universality of 'subject' and 'object' in languages makes the
question vague, and that you have to 'focus' on the 'topic' of what
'subject' and 'object' are supposed to significantly represent in
language.
----
lojbab = Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
         2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA
         703-385-0273
         lojbab@grebyn.com

For information about Lojban, please provide a snail-post address to me
via mail or phone.  We are funded solely by contributions, which are
encouraged for the purpose of defraying our costs, but are not mandatory.