Hallo!
# 1 wrote:
> With the most recent change in the Vbazi grammar (more recent that the post
> in which I described it), it seems simple to represent the two meanings of
> "The man threw the ball and fell"
>
> That change is that the verb can no longer inflect for the dative argument
> as principal argument and the dative argument always goes after the verb.
> That way, the verb can only agree for the object if there is one or the
> subject if not.
>
> So, the verbs agrees in person, number, and case(Nom/Acc) with its
> absolutive argument.
So an intransitive verb has a nominative marker, and a transitive
verb has an accusative marker?
> This way it is easy to distinct "The man threw the ball and [the man] fell"
> and "The child threw the ball and [the ball] fell" by using nominative or
> accusative on "to fall"
>
> jaljl jehi jylnjyzbeinjai ai jylmizdjai
> jal -jl jehi jyl -njyzbein-jai ai jyl -mizd-jai
> ball-ACC Man PAST-throw 3rd/S/ACC and PAST-fall-3rd/S/ACC
> The man threw the ball and (the ball) fell
>
> jaljl jehi jylnjyzbeinjai yi jylmizdja
> jal -jl jehi jyl -njyzbein-jai yi jyl -mizd-ja
> ball-ACC Man PAST-throw 3rd/S/ACC and PAST-fall-3rd/S/NOM
> The man threw the ball and (the man) fell
You seem to like the letter |j|, or whatever phoneme you use it
to represent ;-)
> (The conjonction "and" between two verbs is not the same depending if the
> two verbs have the same ending or not, a third one is used when it is
> between two nouns.)
>
> It would be the only possibility for an intransitive verb to take an
> accusative ending, it depends of the first mark used in the sentence.
>
> Does this work?
I see no reason why it shouldn't, though I haven't seen anything
like that before. Very original!
Greetings,
Jörg.