Re: Triggeriness ...

Constructed Languages List <CONLANG@...> writes:
>Then, Tagalog
>is not an accusative nor and ergative language,
>because it has only one core case (the 'subject'
>or 'trigger' or however you like to name it) and
>this case has none of the roles assigned to it by
>default, being its semantics entirely determined
>by and dependent on verbal voice. Is there a name
>for this structure? Well, I think that's what
>the label "trigger language" refers to.
I think it is a mistake to try to correlate trigger languages with those
with "case". I see no evidence there is case (in the traditional sense).
The nouns are simply marked as the focus (of course we can play the
semantics game), But i think trying to think of triggers like cases is
only asking for confusion in working with these languages.

I don't know, maybe i just *get* it, but the way triggers are used seems
easy to me, and i never see why they're so confusing to lots of other
people.

In other words, don't try to think of it in terms of what you know of
Indo-European languages. It just won't work and will confuse the hell out
of you. Keep it simple.

Replies