Re: Active, Was: Help with grammar terms

On Wed, 19 Jan 2000 16:44:19 +0100, daniel andreasson
<daniel.andreasson@...> wrote:

>Basilius wrote:
>
>> As for the stadial theory... I'm thinking of some *anti-*stadialist
>> conlanging project, instead ;). It seems to me that the system I've
>> outlined could develop in a rather natural way from some nominative
>> language. E. g. from Latin. Anybody interested in the details?
>
>:) What do you think?!?!? Don't keep it to yourself!
>Let the world know!
- Thank you so much for this encouraging response!

I already have some plan in my head, but I probably won't be able to
write it down before this weekend (when I'll be offline). I hope
something will be ready by Monday. I'll start a new thread named 'Active
Romance'.

It appears that the language will use both active derivates from inactive
nouns and inactive derivates from active ones, plus different declensions
for active/inactive subjects.

>Myself, it seems that MCL Rinya has developed from erg to active.
>Though I'm not sure about the details yet.
I still have to see if some of the intermediary stages can be interpreted
as ergative...


Basilius