Re: Case

Dans un courrier dat=E9 du 14/07/99 15:58:35  , And a =E9crit :

> I find the implied connection
>  > between the PATH, INSTRUMENT, and MEASURE relations rather pleasing,
>  > for example:  "I hit the nail BY MEANS OF the hammer", "I walked BY
>  MEANS
>  > OF the woods", "I am taller than Bill BY MEANS OF three feet"...
> =20
>  It sounds to me as if it is PERLATIVITY ("through-ness") rather than
>  INSTRUMENTALITY that is the semantic essence of this case. So better
>  translations would in that case be
> =20
>      "I hit the nail VIA/THROUGH the hammer",
>      "I walked VIA/THROUGH the woods",
>      "I am taller than Bill VIA/THROUGH three feet"...
> =20
>   --And.
maybe you're right and Matt feels like that too,
but then i would be disappointed ;-)

many natlangs use "through" or "via" as both notional
instrumental and spacio/temporal "perlative" or "translative".

but why not imagine a lang where "instrument" is a kind
of modal that may be attached to other cases ? i mean :
no applicative device so you can derive INS from
NOM, ACC or LOC for instance.
let's say we have an active language :

i-NOM hit anvil-ACC.
i hit the anvil.
no hammering or smithering process implied.
ouch.

hammer-NOM hit anvil-ACC.
the hammer hits the anvil.
no hammering or smithering process
implied. just happens so. oops.

hammer-NOM-INS hit anvil-ACC.
the hammer hits the anvil.
hammering process implied.
no smithering process implied.
just couldn't stand that anvil. =20

hammer-NOM-INS hit anvil-ACC-INS.
the hammer hits the anvil.
hammering and smithering processes implied.
here is your horse-shoe.

i-NOM hit anvil-ACC-INS hammer-NOM-INS.
i-NOM hit the anvil smither with a hammer.=20
etc.

same with "way" :

i-NOM go way-LOC.
i go on a way just crossing it.
i-NOM go way-LOC-INS.
i go my way. "wending" process implied.

and here are the funny ones :

i-NOM take cup-ACC handle-ACC-INS.
i take the cup by the handle.

i-NOM enter house-LOC door-LOC-INS.
i enter the house through the door.

but of course, you don't need INS :

i-NOM enter house-LOC door-LOC.
i enter the house through the door
of course so ! ever entered a door through
a house ? tttttut.

i-NOM hit hammer-NOM.
i hit with a hammer.
don't tell me the hammer hits with you.

(you can guess what it turns with "passive" voice.)

but as my french lingo book tells me,
there are "irreductible", purely notional instruments
like "language" for which you can't find a valid case
for this to attach "INS" to except if you go like :

i-NOM speak language-ACC.
i-ERG speak language-ABS.
"i speak a language."

but "language" is a faculty
or instrument already implied in "to speak".

"i hammer with a hammer." (NOM)
"i go a way." (ACC)
"i think a thought". (FIN)
"i speak a language". (?)

also, when the word is not an instrument per se
you could use ATT instead of INS.
that is, the instrument is considered a dependent
attribute of another actor :

i-NOM hit hammer-NOM-ATT anvil-ACC-INS.
i hit the anvil with (my) hammer.

house-NOM closes.
the house closes.

house-NOM closes door-NOM-ATT.
the house closes its door.

door-NOM closes house-NOM-GEN.
the door closes (closing) the house.

i-ERG close door-NOM house-NOM-GEN.
i-NOM make_close door-ACC house-ACC-GEN.
i close the door (and thus close the house).

this helps consistently derive nouns of instruments
from verb roots (bottle-opener) and reversely verbs
from nouns of instruments (*to way).

i hope it was not to boring or trivial.
i-EXP-NOM-GEN enjoyed very much writing
this-ACC-RES-ABS-INS-ATT-BLST.

mathias