Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: THEORY: "Quirky" Case -- "Quirky" Subjects and "Quirky" Objects

From:tomhchappell <tomhchappell@...>
Date:Friday, July 29, 2005, 18:53
Thank you for writing.
--- In, Markus Miekk-oja <m13kk0@H...> wrote:
> [snip] > There also is a significant ammount of languages where there's > not a > one-to-one mapping between morphological and syntactical case: some > languages allow coordination of verbs that take non-nominative > with verbs > that don't
Very interesting. What exactly is "morphological case", what exactly is "syntactical case", and what languages don't have a one-to-one correspondence between morphological cases and syntactical cases, and wherein does the correspondence fail to be one-to-one?
> Reflexive pronouns in languages where reflexives only can > refer to subjects
/Usually/ "simple" reflexives, as opposed to "compound" (right term?) reflexives. Right? And /usually/ if reflexives can co-refer only with subjects, they can do so "long-distance", that is, outside their own clause. Right?
> ("syntactically nominative") are surprisingly likely to also > refer to > non-nominative subjects.
Really? Examples?
> Subject omission in coordinated > sentences like 'I > like porridge and hate chips' can happen in many languages > even if like > takes a dative subject and hate takes a nominative, or > accusative one. > > I<1>.dat like porridge.nom and Ø<1>.acc hate chips.obl
Worth noting. Thank you. ----- Thanks again to everyone, especially Markus, whose "non-IE" conlang inspired my question(s). Tom H.C. in MI


Markus Miekk-oja <m13kk0@...>