Re: Grammatical Summary of Kemata

En réponse à Vasiliy Chernov <bc_@...>:

>
> Sure. And you know it: Classical Arabic. (St. constructus regularly
> differs from St. absolutus in having neither the definite article nor
> the
> tanwins;
True, though I had taken the absence of article from an impossibility to add it
to an already definite noun. But that's valid nonetheless.

 OTOH gen. is mostly distinguishable from nom. and acc.,
> except
> sentence-finally).
>
And pause-finally, which accounts for a lot of places since genitives are
almost always at the end of phrases.

Still, this "construct" state is nothing like the construct state of Hebrew. It
seems to me to account more of problems of liaison and definition than of a
real grammatical structure. Though the frontier between those two ideas is
probably thin...

> (and IIRC, Akkadian is another example)
>
I've seen a grammar of Akkadian, but I can't remember it having cases (though I
remember it having a construct state).

Christophe.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

Take your life as a movie: do not let anybody else play the leading role.