Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ    Attic   

Re: Case

From:Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>
Date:Tuesday, November 11, 2008, 13:08
So now I'm curious - how do languages without an instrumental/agentive
case distinction deal with clauses that require both roles?  I'm
imagining the game of "Clue(do)", with statements like "Mr. Body was
killed by Colonel Mustard in the Conservatory with the Knife".  In
languages where both the murderer and the weapon normally go in the
same case, how is the distinction made?

On 11/11/08, Campbell Nilsen <cactus95@...> wrote:
> OK, it's the agentive. "Case" closed. > > "Define 'cynical'."-M. Mudd > > --- On Tue, 11/11/08, R A Brown <ray@...> wrote: > From: R A Brown <ray@...> > Subject: Re: case > To: > Date: Tuesday, November 11, 2008, 7:50 AM > > Eldin Raigmore wrote: >> On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 12:49:43 -0800, Campbell Nilsen >> <cactus95@...> wrote: >>> Right, right. But the instrumental is ONLY used in "by means > of" >>> consttructions. This case is used for ONLY ONE[save prespositional] > PURPOSE. >>> [snip] > > This is not true of the instrumental case in Russian. In IE languages > with case system, each case normally has more than one use. > >> You're wondering what to do with demoted agents, or rather, what to > call >> what you do with them. >> >> Most nominative-accusative languages with passivization, in which the >> demoted agent may or must be explicit, put it in a case used for something > >> else as well; instrumental, or perlative, or prolative, or prosecutive, or > vialis, > > It's always AFAIK a case also used for something else (I haven't heard > of the last two cases listed above). Also, I believe, a distinction is > made between demoted animate & inanimate subjects, e.g. > > (a) He was hit on the head _by a rock_ (<-- A rock hit him on the head). > (b) He was hit on the head by an intruder (<-- An intruder hit him on > the head). > > In Latin 'by a rock' is just the plain ablative case, whereas 'by > an > intruder' is the preposition _a/ab_ followed by the ablative case. > > In ancient Greek 'by a rock' is just the plain dative case (Greek had > no > ablative), whereas 'by an intruder' is _hypo_ followed by the genitive > case. > > In both languages, 'by a rock' is treated in exactly the same way as > any > any other _instrumental_ phrase, i.e. the same as 'with a rock' in, > say, > 'He struck the intruder with a rock.' But the animate agent is > translated by a preposition followed by the case demanded by that > preposition. > > If you want a specific case for an animate agent of a passive, then the > obvious name is surely _agentive_ as, indeed: > > phil@PHILLIPDRISCOLL.COM wrote: > [snip] > > If you mean constructions such as "The ball was kicked > > by the girl" where "girl" is in the special case, how > > about "agentive case"? > > Amen. > ==================================== > > David J. Peterson wrote: > > Actually, I think it's usually called the objective, though > > I have seen it called non-nominative. > [snip] > > > On Nov 10, 2008, at 4∞33 PM, Mark J. Reed wrote: > > > >> Isn't that what English's all-purpose non-nominative case is > called as > >> well? > > >> > >> On 11/10/08, David J. Peterson <dedalvs@...> wrote: > >>> The traditional name in the literature is "oblique". > > Traditionally all cases except the nominative (the 'casus rectus', i.e. > > 'upright case') have been called 'oblique cases'. > > Where, as for example in Old French & Old Provençal, one has a two case > system - nominative & 'non-nominative' - the latter is normally > called > the 'oblique case'. > > IME English is said to have three cases: Nominative, Objective & > Possessive. If one counts the possessive as a case, then both the > objective & the possessive are 'oblique cases'. > > But the behavior of the possessive _'s_ is as an clitic rather than a > fusional case ending, so I guess one could then regard English as having > just a nominative & oblique. But that seems to me somewhat illogical > because if the possessive is excluded, surely English nouns are > caseless! Only personal pronouns then show case distinctions - and they > certainly have possessive forms! > > Personal pronouns, indeed, often have a more elaborate case system than > nouns, e.g. in Old French & Old Provençal while nouns had only two > cases, the 3rd person pronouns had three, since they retained (as they > still do) special forms for the indirect object (i.e. dative). > > -- > Ray > ================================== > > ================================== > Frustra fit per plura quod potest > fieri per pauciora. > [William of Ockham] >
-- Sent from Gmail for mobile | Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>


taliesin the storyteller <taliesin-conlang@...>
Henrik Theiling <theiling@...>