Re: a grammar sketch...

daniel andreasson wrote:

> I also have some info on Awa Pit, which is a deixis-oriented language.
> This is really cool too. If anyone's interested, I can post the info
> I have on it.
Yes, this sounds interesting.

> > Another idea: an "anti-active" language.  Active intransitive verbs
> > (such as "to laugh") treat their subjects like direct objects,
> > while non-active verbs (e.g. "to fall") like transitive subjects:
> >
> > child-I stone-II throw
> >
> > child-II laugh
> >
> > stone-I fall
> >
> > (I and II are some kinds of cases, for which I haven't invented names
> > yet; or use head marking instead.)
>
> Hmm. I and II are fine names I think. As for the anti-active language,
> it doesn't really make any sense semantically, which is the way I
> define active languages. You might come up with a syntactic explanation,
> but you're gonna have to ask Marcus about that. ;)
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 agents,
> 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.