Re: a grammar sketch...

On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 12:17:46AM +0200, Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
> Yoon Ha Lee wrote:
[snip]
> > Something like "I gave her flowers" would render casewise:
> > I: actor
> > her: actee (the intent of the action is to make "her" a gift-recipient)
> > flowers: accomplice (the flowers were complicitous in the giving-act)
> > giving: action
>
> Traditionally, "here" is in dative case and "flowers" in accusative, or
> as we are talking active langs here, objective case.
[snip]

Whoa!! Did you notice the correlation, Jorg? The way she used her
"accomplice" case is almost like the way I use my conveyant case! In fact,
this is exactly the same as the earlier version of my conveyant case. It
gets rid of the IMNSHO awkward method of placing the recipient in a
secondary dative case while the thing being given (which in my mind is
less important than the recipient) is in the objective case. Of course,
later I reworked my system to be more self-consistent, and the conveyant
case become more general in its usage. But it seems that my original
conveyant case coincides with Yoon's accomplice case.

I'm intrigued! :-P  I've already replied to her post, but didn't notice
that her accomplice case matches my conveyant case (at least in the
earlier version). It was when you pointed out that "flowers" would usually
be put into the objective case, that it occurred to me that my conlang is
also different from the regular active lang in that particular usage.


T