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

Thank you for writing.
--- In conlang@yahoogroups.com, 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

Reply