On Tue, 16 May 2006 18:13:10 -0400, Jim Henry <jimhenry1973@...>
wrote:
>On 5/16/06, Eldin Raigmore <eldin_raigmore@...> wrote:
>>On Mon, 15 May 2006 11:22:43 -0400, Jim Henry
>>><jimhenry1973@...> wrote:
>
><snip much goodness>
>
[er]
>>The four of "my" types that _couldn't_ be covered by any of Milewski's six
>>types, look to be (er.xi), (er.xii), (er.xiii), and (er.xiv).
>>
>>I would, therefore, be very interested in any natlang which attests to one
>>of them.
[JH]
>I suspect the reason they don't fit any of Milewski's
>types is that he is by default assigning the unmarked
>one of genitive or construct to the least-marked of
>the theta role cases - nominative or ergative.
[er]
I figured it was probably something like that. I just wish I knew more
precisely and with better certainty. But few mediums around here
specialize in linguistics, or in talking to deceased Polish linguists.
[JH]
>In my analysis (such as it is) I would not assign
>the unmarked one to any particular case, and thus
>I would collapse some your types together: e.g.,
>your v and ix I would both describe as:
>
>A=S (nominative), O (accusative), G (genitive), C is unmarked
>
>and similarly with the others that have a distinct G
>but conflate C with A or O, and those that have
>distinct C but conflate G with A or O.
>
>Of course this analysis wouldn't work for a language
>that really has a construct state identical to a
>particular oblique case and also has a distinct genitive,
>or vice versa; but if there are any such natlangs
>I don't know about them. As far as I know
>the construct state as such is attested only in
>the Semitic language family (see below), and there
>construct state is orthogonal to case.
[er]
I believe it was Akkadian; at any rate the very first Semitic language I
looked at specifically for the purpose of investigating "construct state",
was indeed analyzed has having _both_ a genitive _and_ a "construct state",
by that author. (I think if you look back at "Carsten's Birthday" in the
archives, you may see where someone referenced that language.)
AFAICR no other Semitic language I looked at had a genitive; or at least,
AFAICR no other language I looked at that had a "construct state" had a
genitive.
[er]
>>ObConLang: I would also be interested in any conlang which attests to one
>>of them.
[snip]
[JH]
>>>My gjâ-zym-byn is fluid-S active, with a variety of
>>>genitive postpositions for specific relationships
>>>(possession, ownership, entity-attribute, part-whole,
>>>authorship, kinship...), and no construct state.
>>>As a fluid-S language I don't think it fits into Milewski's typology at
>>>all.
>..........
>>>There are at least three postpositions that can
>>>mark the subject of a sentence
[er]
>>_That_ is _very_ _interesting_!
[JH]
>>>(depending on animacy and volitionality)
>>>and at least six that can mark the object of a
>>>transitive verb,
[er]
>>That is interesting.
[JH]
>>>plus several others that can mark the predicate of a
>>>subject noun when there is no verb.
[er]
>>That sounds like the kind of phenomenon Milewski would have talked about;
>>unfortunately I can't figure out what he would have said about it.
>>At any rate, it's both interesting in its own right, and right on-topic
>>for this post.
[JH]
[er]
It's very clear. I have questions about why one or two pairs of the cases
you've marked as different, aren't the same case instead; but I'll ask
offlist.
[JH]
>>>One of my oldest conlangs, Pliv-Rektek, had both a
>>>genitive case and what I then called a
>>>contra-genitive, not having heard of the
>>>term "construct state".
[er]
>>Is "construct state" a "case", as it seems at the moment? Or is it
>>like "definite" and "indefinite", whatever they are?
[JH]
>I treated the contra-genitive like a case in Pliv-Rektek,
>but according to this Wikipedia article,
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_constructus
>
>the construct state in Arabic and Hebrew is a
>kind of definiteness marking, not a case.
>I don't know if there is anything similar in other
>natlangs outside the Semitic family. The
>Wikipedia article mentions a "parallel" case
>in Irish which on close examination is not
>parallel at all.
Thanks, Jim.
eldin