Re: Changes of conlangs and their speakers (was Re: Skerre Play Online)

---In conlang@yahoogroups.com, Henrik Theiling <theiling@...> wrote:
[snip]
>Jörg Rhiemeier writes:
[snip]
>>... But I think the grammar will stand, even though I found out
>>that there's another case (the perlative in -°th) ...
[snip]
>I like perlatives. :-)
>
> Does anyone have a conlang or knows a natlang with cases that
> distinguishes more or different spatial (and/or temporal)
> movement/change concepts than locative, allative, ablative and
> perlative?  (I only mean the basic concept, not the precise point of
> reference: so I'd count Finnish as a language distinguishing three
> concepts: locative, allative and ablative).
>
> **Henrik
I'm not sure you're asking for a natlang for each, or for one natlang with
all.

It happens that Blake's "Case" does show some natlangs that distinguish
more.  I think some Bantu languages are among them.

There are several degrees of closeness that may be involved;
* actual penetration
* adhesion/cohesion (but not necessarily penetration)
* contact (but not necessarily stickiness)
* just being nearby.

I think Swahili, or some other Bantu language, has three of these.  So
a "locative" could come in three degrees;
* sort of vaguely close to,
* right up against,
* part of.

(I forget which three degrees are actually used, just as I forget which
language uses them. Sorry.)

You can see that a locative/adessive, an allative, an ablative, and a
perlative could have various incarnations in languages which both had more
than two degrees of "contact" and also had cases like the locative and/or
allative and/or ablative and/or perlative.

For instance, the penetrating perlative could be _through_ something; the
adhering perlative could be like, I don't know, maybe, dripping along a
stretched line or an elevated train moving along a monorail; the contact
perlative could be like actually rolling along a highway; and the vaguely-
nearby perlative could be like following a river along near its bank.

The penetrating allative would actually be an illative; the
cohering/adhering allative would be like hawking a loogy on someone; the
contact allative might be like a feather floating down to land on your
shoulder; and the sort-of-vaguely-nearby allative could be like the king
throwing largesse to the peasants.

Since English differentiates, in its "allative", between actual destination
(to) and direction of motion (toward); its reasonable to guess some
natlangs do so in their actual case-markings, and that they might also
distinguish between actual source and direction-from-which-it-comes (two
different kind of "ablative"-like notions).  One would expect the same
could happen with "perlatives"; actual grazing contact vs just a close buzz-
by.

Does that help at all?

If not, at least you know I got the ideas from Barry J. Blake's "Case".  I
no longer have a copy, but if you can locate one, you can find out the
details I am trying to recall.

-----
eldin