Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: ANNOUNCE: My new conlang S11

From:Christian Thalmann <cinga@...>
Date:Tuesday, March 8, 2005, 3:33
--- In, "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh@Q...> wrote:

> > > Ebisédian does not use verbs for states. ... > > > > Ah! That's logical. :-) > > Yeah, this point actually stumbled me for quite some time when I was > designing Ebisédian grammar. For a long time I was so obsessed with > how to handle verbs, that I completely forgot about stative > statements. When I suddenly realized I needed a way to express those > as well, it took me a while to try to rationalize it with the > verb-centric system that I had developed. (This is one of the reasons > stative sentences in Ebisédian are so strange---they were patched on > after the fact, so some ugly kludges had to be made.)
I haven't studied Ebisédian in detail, but from what you say now and from what I remember of your PDF grammar, the definitions of the cases make lots of sense to me, and the assignment of meanings to verbless combinations of case arguments no less so.
> Ebisédian uses another (some may consider 'crazy') way of expressing > position: the combination of the conveyant (the thing being owned) > with the receptive (the owner). This is actually adapted from Greek, > where the dative case is used for the owner. The receptive case does > behave somewhat like a dative. One way to understand this is that two > people are sitting at a table deciding to whom object X on the table > belongs. The result of the decision would be the transferring of X to > the owner, so the owner would be in the receptive. Hence the > conveyant-receptive paradigm.
That use of the dative seems intuitive to the point of being boring to me, as a native speaker ("natblab"? ;o) of a lang that routinely parses "it is to me" as "it belongs to me". I think you need to be less apologetic and more proud about your grammar. The vocabulary and the concepts it describes are a wholly different matter, of course. You have every right to apologize for those. :))
> fia nei kuini bibi sei bunari kei dakat. > Fia RCP acquire doll CVY woman ORG COMPL > Fia acquires a doll from the woman. > > fia nei kuini bibi sei dakat. > Fia RCP acquire doll CVY COMPL > Fia acquires a doll. / Fia has a doll.
Apart from the seemingly unnecessarily large predicate (what is that complement good for anyway?), I see nothing wrong with that. And the syllable count awareness is just a freaky little obsession of mine. ;) -- Christian Thalmann