Re: Accusative or not accusative; that is the question

 --- Lars Finsen <lars.finsen@...> escribió:

> Den 25. sep. 2006 kl. 05.19 skrev Santiago Matías
> Feldman:
> >
> > The question is, I was thinking that the
> accusative
> > needed to be marked too, as any other case, (...)
(Lars):

> What options for marking it have you been thinking
> of?
(Santiago):

Apart from the "suffixed-article" and "preposed
article" options that I had mentioned, first I had
thought of suffixing a particle which is different
from the article, that is, one that's only used for
marking the accusative; but then I felt that there was
no plausible explanation of the origin of that feature
out of Latin.
Another option was preposing a particle, which is only
used for marking the accusative case, but I didn't
like it.

> (Santiago):
> > Summing up, the two options are these:
> >
> > 1st:
> >
> > NOM   la om
> > ACC   omul
> > GEN   la omus
> > DAT   la om-???
> > ADL?  la omat   (to the man)
> > LOC   la oman
> > ???   la omaš   (from the man)
> > ???   la omsun (without the man)
(Lars):

> Perhaps you need two different cases for those two
> latter senses, but
> I'd like to mention that you could combine them into
> one without
> risking much ambiguity, letting the context decide
> the meaning. For
> example with ablative as the choice, you can express
> 'I went without
> the man' as "went-I the man-abl" and 'I went from
> the man' as "went-I
> the man-gen house(or wherever he's at)-abl." This is
> done in some
> natlangs. Statements such as 'I got it from the man'
> also would be
> unambiguous because few context would make any sense
> of 'I got it
> without the man'. I have experimented a bit with
> this in my Urianian,
> an IE language with a postpositional trend due to
> substrate
> influence. Just thought I'd like to mention it.
(Santiago):

That could be implemented, but I'd like my Romlang to
be quite unambiguous. I'd separate those two meanings
even though there wouldn't be much ambiguity if I
didn't.
As regards Urianian, that's interesting. The
description you're giving fits very well with my
Romlang Laturslav. It's IE with Turkic substrate
influence.

And is it Urianian agglutinative too? Is it supposed
to be related to the Indo-Altaic family in some way?
The name reminds me of the Urals, but perhaps it
doesn't have anything to do with them?

(Santiago):

> > etc (under construction!)    etc
> >
> > 2nd:
> >
> > NOM   omul
> > ACC   la om
> > GEN   la omus
> > DAT   la om-???
> > ADL?  la omat
> > LOC   la oman
> > ???   la omaš
> > ???   la omsïn
> > etc
> >
> > Which one would you choose?
(Lars):

> Yes, like others I think the latter looks best.
> Natlangs often go for
> neatness if they are given a clear choice, because
> it works best for
> the memory. Still there are many cases where they
> take the odd way
> out as well. So it's not necessary the option that
> looks best which
> would be the choice of your Laturslavs. Perhaps you
> should ask them?
(Santiago):

Well, the interesting thing is that my native tongue,
Spanish, has this paradigm for third person pronouns:

NOM él  (he)
ACC lo
DAT le
OBL él

So, whenever él is preceded by a preposition, you have
the NOM-like form: él.

'con él', 'de él' 'por él' 'sin él', etc.

That's where I took the idea from.
This looks more like the first option for Laturslav,
the one in which the nominative and has the preposed
article, the same as all the other cases, except the
accustative.

However, I think I'll go for the second, as you are
suggesting. It seems more logical, yes.

Santiago


	
	
		
__________________________________________________
Preguntá. Respondé. Descubrí.
Todo lo que querías saber, y lo que ni imaginabas,
está en Yahoo! Respuestas (Beta).
¡Probalo ya!
http://www.yahoo.com.ar/respuestas

Reply