>>So if I understand correctly, the annexes, rather than marking a
function of a
>>word in a sentence, mark a relation between two words, one being the
subject.
>>This sounds like an interesting difference compared to prepositions
and
>>postpositions which usually mark a relation between the *verb* and the
object
>>(except in cases like "of" after a noun for instance). Personally I
find the
>>idea very interesting. I just wonder how you do when the relation is
not with
>>the subject. For instance, let's take a sentence like "John cleaned
the room
>>for the guest". It's the whole action which is done for the guest, and
thus
>>should be related to him. "John" himself is not directly related to
the guest.
>>So in this case it would be more sensible to have a linking mark
between the
>>verb "cleaned" and the noun "guest". Or do you take things
grammatically and
>>consider that the relation still involves the subject? :))
You're very close to understanding my intentions with annexes. The only
difference between your interpretation and my definition is that the
annex is not only a relationship between the subject and object, but
also a relationship between everything before the annex and everything
after it. This sometimes includes the verb, but not always. In your
example, "John cleaned the room for the guest.", the dative annex "ret"
would be used to indicate that the guest is an indirect object (indirect
objects come after the verb, unlike direct objects).
John cleaned the room for the guest.
John (perform verb on) the-room (past) clean (preceding undertaken for
purpose of) the-guest.
John nik usviruo in liuro ret ustotsuin.
Keep 'em comin'!
Thanks!
Jeff