Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: a grammar sketch...

From:Vasiliy Chernov <bc_@...>
Date:Friday, October 6, 2000, 18:31
In addition to what Marcus proposed.

A system with two cases: 'absolutive' and 'participational' (?).

child-ABS laugh
Situation: laughter; predicated to: child.

Everything's as usual.

stone-PART fall
Situation: falling; participated in by: stone.

'Stone' is inanimate, so it must be marked as only 'participating' in
the situation, even when no other participants are named.

child-PART stone-ABS fall
Situation: stone-throwing; participated in by: child.

Situation with more than one participants; the most 'prominent' of them
stands in PART, the rest (in ABS) form kinda incorporative construction
with the verb.

Note: _Child-PART laugh_ is possible too, implying that there are other,
unnamed participants ('together with somebody' or 'at somebody').

Also possible: _Stone-PART throw_ 'The stone is being thrown';
_Child-PART throw_ 'The child throws (something, perhaps together with

Indeed, ABS gets in fact split into several 'underlying' cases=roles,
but this is probably inevitable with so bizarre a system. Noun classes
are actually 'active'.

-  -  -  -  -  -  -

On Thu, 5 Oct 2000 23:52:57 +0200, =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg?= Rhiemeier
<joerg.rhiemeier@...> wrote:

>> > child-I stone-II throw >> > >> > child-II laugh >> > >> > stone-I fall
>Of course it doesn't make any semantic sense. And it is probably also >very difficult to find a syntactic explanation. And that's why I >proposed >it! It is so absurd that it's fun to do. Of course, such a language >would have to allow both animates and inanimates to take both case I >and II, while in an active language, you can reserve the agentive case >for animates, as I have done in Nur-ellen. > >If one was to show me a language which does this and asked me on my >opinion whether it's natural or not, I'd say, "Definitely constructed!" >because the only way I can imagine how it could happen is that some >conlanger was doing it for the fun of it. > >> If you can find a way to explain why you treat the 'subject' of stative/ >> non-controlled/non-volitional/whatever predicates like transitive
>> then it would be really cool. > >Yes, because it looks so completely absurd! > >> Perhaps it's possible to find a way to >> make it fit semantics too. > >Marcus, your turn. > >Jörg.