Re: Non-static verbs?

H. S. Teoh writes:

> [...]
>
> There isn't really a difference between active and passive in my conlang.
> It uses quite a different point of view from the usual subject-object
> system in Indo-European languages. Nouns cases are:
> - originative: the noun is the cause/initiator of an event/action
> - receptive (not sure if this is a good name): the noun is the object
>   being that the action is directed at. Usually similar to the "object"
>   (in the sense of subject/object), but not always.
This looks like an active language.  There doesn't seem to be a
standardized terminology for the cases of such languages; just about
everyone has his/her
own terms for them.  Your originative and receptive cases apparently
correspond to what I call agentive and objective in my own conlang,
Nur-ellen.
In Nur-ellen, the agentive marks the person or being from which the
(volitional) action originates; only animate nouns may occur in this
case.  The objective is used to mark the direct object of an action.
The argument of an intransitive verb is in agentive if the verb refers
to a volitional action, while stative verbs such as "to stand", and also
verbs like "to fall" take the objective case.

Examples:

Feanor     hedent     sarn.
AGT.Feanor throw-PAST OBJ.stone
"Feanor threw a stone."

Feanor     linnent.
AGT.Feanor sing-PAST
"Feanor sang."

Sarn       lantent.
OBJ.stone  fall-PAST
"A stone fell."

Veanor     lantent.
OBJ.Feanor fall-PAST
"Feanor fell."

The full picture is more complex, as dative, comitative and instrumental
(which are all expressed by prepositions) are used to mark varying
degrees of volition.  I am not going to embark on the details of that, I
have already done so in this list.

Are the originative and receptive cases used the same way?

> - instrumental: the noun is the vehicle for the action to be done, or the
>   means by which the event happens (ie., a facilitator of the action)
In Nur-ellen, the use of the instrumental (_ni_ + objective) includes:
1) the means by which something is done;
2) an inanimate "subject" (as in English "The ball hit the goal");
3) an animate subject acting against his/her will
   (e.g. a soldier following orders).

[...]

>   This example also shows that there aren't really passives in the
>   language: "he was beaten by the rogue" is the same as "the rogue
>   beat(past) him". For the agent-less passive sentence "he was beaten",
>   the originative noun "the rogue" is simply omitted:
>         beat(verb) before(loc) him(rcp).
The absence of passives is a feature typical for active languages,
mainly because the passive construction would mess up the
semantics-based case system.
Nur-ellen does not have a passive either.  As in your language,
agent-less sentences are formed by omitting the agentive NP.

> As for using "create" or "destroy", I suppose that would work as well,
> although it does give a slightly different nuance in meaning:
>         the.object(cvy) come(verb) past(loc) no-universe(nullar,rcp)
> This means, "the object ceased to exist"; literally, "the object went into
> no-universe (ie., non-existance)".
This is indeed an interesting construction.  I have not settled yet on
how to express it in Nur-ellen, but it will probably be something
equalling English "the object no longer exists" or "the object
vanished", with "the object" being in objective case, of course.

>       Whereas, if you used a verb for
> "destroy" instead:
>         destroy(verb) past(loc) the.object(rcp)
> this would imply that "the object" was specifically destroyed by
> something. The first sentence is more along the lines of "the object just
> vanished!" whereas this second sentence is more along the lines of
> "something destroyed this object".
Nur-ellen does it in a similar way, e.g.

Ristent    i   ku.
break-PAST the OBJ.bow

or, ordered differently,

I   ku      ristent.
the OBJ.bow break-PAST

Both sentences mean the same, though the former more strongly implies
that someone broke the bow.

Syld,

Joerg