Re: Case question

Quoting "Mark J. Reed" <markjreed@...>:

> Sorry to interrupt the OT stuff with some actual conlanging, but
> I have a question. :)
We'll forgive you, just this once.

> As you may or may not recall, I'm working on my first a posteriori
> conlang, which is supposed to be Indo-European but not part of any
> surviving real language family.
>
> I decided to play with the active/stative distinction which early PIE
> apparently had, even though the language otherwise has an accusative
> case system similar to that of Sanskrit.  The active/stative thing
> shows up in the fact that the subject of an intransitive verb
> takes a form which is distinct from *both* the nominative case
> (used for transitive subjects) and the accusative case (used for
> transitive objects).
>
> My question is: what should I call this case?  It is also used
> as the vocative, but calling it the "vocative" wouldn't convey
> its complete function.  I was thinking of just calling it the
> "stative", but was wondering if there was any other precedent
> which would be worth following here.
That would be a tripartite system ...

I'm not actually knowledgeable on tripartite case systems, but in what little
I've seen on them, the S case has been refered to as "intransitive".

                                                  Andreas

PS Perhaps better call your nominative "ergative", to drive home the point
it's only used for A. I think I've seen that done when describing tripartite
systems.

Reply