On Sat, 10 Oct 1998 11:38:07 -0300, Pablo Flores
<fflores@...> wrote:
>The "modifier" case is sort of a catch-all case. I think we should call
>"modifier" what is called "classifier" above, and drop "classifier". =
Also,
>let's have "predicate" alone as a case, and add other inflections to
>distinguish between static and dynamic. Carlos? That way we would have:
>
>agent
>patient
>undergoer
>theme
>predicate
>modifier
>determinant
I think we should start looking at specific verbs and see which cases =
they
need. Take the verb "sell", for instance: it has four arguments (the
seller, buyer, merchandise, and price). Which is the agent? If the seller
is the agent, what is the buyer? Or would it be preferable to split this
into two separate phrases (you sell the CD, I pay 15 dollars)?
>If don't set for a fixed word order, we should have some kind of =
agreement
>or parsing scheme. For example, a particle to separate the
>determinant/modifier-agent/undergoer part from the =
predicate-theme/patient
>part. If we use SOV in sentences, either we use a fixed order or a =
particle,
>like Japanese "wa", "o", "ni" (pre- or postfixed).
Isn't the case affix sufficient to separate these two parts?
>I don't agree. This is why I'd like to preserve some form of distinction
>between nouns and verbs. Some roots should be inherently verbal and some
>inherently nominal.
>
>For a verbal system I propose:
>
>Mode:
>indicative
>conditional
>imperative
>subjunctive
>
>Tense:
>present
>past
>future
>(where number would mean: sing =3D single action, plural =3D repeated =
action)
>
>Aspect:
>perfect
>progressive
I agree that verbs should be distinct from nouns. As I mentioned in one =
of
the other posts, I like the idea of marking tense on the nouns and aspect
with the verbs (or perhaps with a preposition: "I-PRES. after reading" =3D=
"I
have just read", "they-PAST before leaving" =3D "they were about to =
leave").
>Aspect (II):
>static
>dynamic
>
>Voice:
>active
>passive
>
>These distinctions would be for verbal roots only (except for tense and =
maybe
>voice, see above).
>>Maybe we could merge gender with evidence?
>>
>We should have other inflections for evidence, and attach them to
>"nouns" and/or "verbs"
Agreed.
>>I vote for lengthening syllabe, either vouel or consonant (geminate).
>>Accenting allways the root at the oposite direction of the case/mode =
tag
>>(final root syllabe in my propossal).
>
>So: stress over the syllable of the root that is farthest from the case/
>mode tag? I would agree on that. Or do you mean accenting by means of
>lengthening? That would be fine for me too. What do the others say?
That would be fine with me. In my proposal, that would be the first
syllable of the root.
(new word) qalbit =3D scorpion
system A: o-qalBIT-a
system B: u-QALbit-a, ni-QALbit-a