Re: HELP: Is this sensible?

Hi!

Carsten Becker <post@...> writes:
...
> OK then, let's start with an example: "Peter is as clever as Paul". In
> Ayeri, you would have "Peter (to be equally) clever -a-s- Paul", where
> "Peter" is the agent, "Paul" is the patient, but to make clear the
> phrase focusses on the patient, he/she/it is triggered. "To be equally"
> means >>camáo<< in Ayeri and "clever" is >>alingo<<, so the sentence is
> translated >>Peterang camayâris aealingo Paulin<<.
>
> ======================================================================
>
> I asked about whehter you think this is senseible or not. What I mean is
> the use of the agent and patient here.
It depends on how you assign agent and patient.  If the assignment is
highly lexicalised, you could do anything.  If the assignment is e.g.
based on control, both should be patients, because no-one is in
control of their cleverness.

My own conlang Tyl-Sjok, which has an agent-patient (split-S)
structure based on control, both are patients and you get the
following contruction for the above sentence:

  Keng  nwng jes,  su  Didel,    Da?ul.
  Equal able think REF peter.PAT paul.PAT.
  'Peter, who is clever, equals Paul('s cleverness).'

REF is a particle that marks the exported referent in a relative
clause, this Peter in 'Peter is clever'.  It is optional.

PAT, the patient, is marked by word order.

In contrast to that, with 'violent', Peter would be agent, because
he is in control of that property:

  Keng  su  Didel    <violent>, Da?ul.
  Equal REF Peter.AGT violent   PAUL.PAT.
  'Peter, who is violent, equals Paul ('s violence).'

(I don't have a word for violence yet.)

AGT, the agent, is also marked by word order.

**Henrik