|From:||From Http://Members.Aol.Com/Lassailly/Tunuframe.Html <lassailly@...>|
|Date:||Saturday, July 10, 1999, 8:29|
Dans un courrier dat=E9 du 10/07/99 09:01:10 , Boudewijn a =E9crit :
> I'm currently engaged in reanalyzing the Denden system of adpositional
> particles, and I've decided to term these 'case particles', after all,
> all these particles belong to the same formal class and most of them
> have meanings that look a lot like traditional cases. What put me on to
> this was the analysis of the particle _tan_ I've posted here a while ago.
> What I have at the moment is (haven't counted them):
[snip all the incredible variety of adpositions]
why so many locative cases ? do you feel it is better
than deriving them from nouns and verbs ?
to reach > until
in-side > in
enter inside > into
i'd thought the languges you study are likely to do so.
your NOM "ga" intrigues me. is it like in japanese :
THEME-wa ... RHEME(-da)
RHEME/FOCUS-ga .... THEME(-da)
("theme" is topical and "rheme" is expletive)
or what ?
why call it "NOM" while it looks like a final copula ?