Re: Ke'kh - degrees of volition

On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 04:55:29PM +0200, daniel andreasson wrote:
[snip]
> Afaik, "volition" is an official term. The 'consequential' sounds like
> some kind of causative to me. But having a 'consequential' in a three-
> way volitional distinction is much cooler imho. :)
Actually, now that I think of it, perhaps "volition" isn't really that
appropriate a term for this... because the incidental / deliberative /
consequential distinction on my conlang's verbs may not necessarily
indicate volition on the part of any of the associated nouns -- I meant it
more as a distinction in how the *speaker* perceives the *purpose* (or
lack thereof) of the event to be.

So, the incidental is perhaps better explained as indicating a "random
event"; the deliberative is an event that is focused towards a definite
end (i.e., it did not happen randomly but there is a reason behind it);
and the consequential is an event that occurred as a consequence of a
previous event.

>
> > Well, I was seeing these huge threads about degrees of volition in active
> > languages not long ago, but I had no idea what it was referring to! Little
> > did I know that I already have the same concept in my own conlang :-)
>
> Usually - or at least in the active natlangs that I'm familiar with -
[snip]

Which natlangs are active? Are there any references on the Net on those?
I'd like to see a "real", active natlang in action :-)


T