Re: CHAT: Back on the list; Anti-conlanging bigots
|From:||Andreas Johansson <and_yo@...>|
|Date:||Saturday, December 8, 2001, 14:40|
>Anton Sherwood wrote:
>>"Thomas R. Wier" wrote:
>> > one day we were discussing how GB handles case marking, and the
>> > question arose whether there are any languages whose adpositions
>> > assign nominative case. I mentioned that I knew off the top of my
>> > head of no natural languages which marked case in that way, though
>> > I did know of a constructed language [Esperanto] that did this. . . .
>>um . . . remind me?
>Hmm, as some people on this list may be aware, Tairezazh and Steianzh
>violate this rule by having prepositions followed by the nominative*. Now,
>in Kalini Sapak the accusative is the most basic case (used as the lexical
>form, as vocative etc). So, does this mean that it be unnatural to have
>adpositions govern accusative? It'd feel to me extremely weird to have the
>adpositions govern the nominative (otherwised strictly reserved for
>subjects), and I really don't want to have all adpositions govern genitive.
Anybody wonder about that apostrophe? I was intending to add a note, saying
that for over a year I've been trying to decide whether I shall "rectify"
this by introducing a special prepositional case in the part lang, which
would coincide in form witht nominative, but forgot it.
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp