Re: Adunaic case system

Some random comments prompted by my experience with Kash, so probably a
little OT...

David Peterson wrote:
> Ray wrote:
[subjective vs. objective genitive]
> Mainly because Latin did not make the distinction! It was potentially as
> ambiguous as English, tho objective genitives are more common than
> subjective ones.
>
Isn't _amor dei_ the common ex.? Actually English can disambiguate this with
different phrasings: "God's love"-- is subjective, implying God loves
[us/someone], whereas "love of God" is objective, [our/someone's] love
w.r.t. God.  This problem hit me as I was merrily writing out the syntax of
Kash, and suddently realized that only the _subjective_ was possible in the
_Verb+ni Noun(nom.)_ construction:
sisa/ni çenji can only mean "Shenji's love" (of someone, which if present--
Sh.'s love of Mina-- would be expressed in a prep.phrase, as in Engl.)

I won't comment much on the Adunaic situation, except to say that as I read
the discussion, the three "cases" seem reasonable.

> The Objective (O) form is used only in compound expressions, or actual
> compounds.
>  >>
>
> Problem 1: What's the difference between a compound expression and
> an "actual" compound!?
Well, in Engl., the stress pattern, I think. láwnmower (device) vs. láwn
mówer (person-- not the best ex., I know); Whíte House vs. whíte hóuse.
----------------------------------------
> /minul tarik/
> heaven-OBJ. pillar-NOR.
> "pillar of heaven"
>
> This looks like the English possessive "heaven's pillar".
Not to me-- surely it's figurative, and doesn't imply actual possession, nor
even "intrinsic part". In Kash it would definitely be _pillar-ni heaven_.
OTOH "pillar of the temple" could be _pillar temple-gen._

 This isn't
> like
> the construct state.  Consider the following Arabic example:
>
> sajaara al-waalid
> /car DET.-father/
> "Father's car."
Actual possession/ownership.  I wonder what would be the Arab. translation
of "the seven pillars of wisdom"??? (There might actually be a phrase "the
five pillars of (the) faith" w.r.t. Islam??)
--------------------------------------
> But Ray wrote:
> <<
> I think equating with 'genitive' is incorrect; possession is shown
> by the prefix _an-_  which is often reduced to _'n-_ (e.g. Bâr 'nAnadûnê
> "Lord of Anadune"; Narîka 'nBâri 'nAdûn "The Eagles of the Lords of th
> West").
"Eagles of..." true possession; "of the West" not, IMO; at least not in
Kash, where it would be _eagles lord-gen west(nom)-- in the nom., karun ures
(lord west) would be a N + N(=adj) compd.
>  >>
>
> So there's three different ways to mark possession in this language
> (the Normal, the Objective, and this an- prefix)...,
Well, there are 3 ways in Kash, too:
1. N-ni N for non-intrisic or figuative possession, usu. restricted to
inanimates;
2. N N-gen for intrinsic possession/ownership, usu. restricted to animates
3. N N where the 2nd noun is adjectival (and implies some possession I
think). Here we might distinguish a generic statement--

"ñera puna (wall(s) (of a) house) is(are) usually built of wood" vs.

"ñerani puna yu (wall-of.it house the [specific wall]) was poorly built"

and even more specific: "ñera kati punayi yu (wall face[façade] house-gen
the) is highly decorated" (where the façade is certainly an intrinsic part,
and so "possessible"). Note the generic version of this: ñera kati puna is
(usually) highly decorated= 'a house('s) façade is..."

>...and no way to distinguish any of them?
I feel JRRT's system distinguishes just as clearly as my Kash exs.

>This is beginning to seem more and
> more like an unfinished sketch.  Perhaps if it had been finished
> these kinks would've been ironed out.  As it is, it seems a little
> jumbled.
That's probably true.......:-)))
Hope I've made some sense. (This area was a problem for me, too)

Replies