Re: Non-static verbs?

On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 11:46:52PM +0200, Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
[snip]
> This looks like an active language.
Cool! I *knew* somebody must've done something similar, somewhere... :-)

>  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.
Interesting. My conlang has a *slightly* different usage for the cases;
but the originative is approximately the same as your agentive, though the
receptive is perhaps slightly more different. Anyway, I think more
examples should help to clarify things: (note, these examples are
deliberately chosen to show the more "unconventional" aspects of my
conlang)

1) Motion:
        I walk from the town into the village.
   would be translated as:
        the.town(org) walk(verb) I(cvy) the.village(rcp)
   I chose this example because it shows a use of the originative that
   isn't what you might call "agentive". The town is obviously not
   "causing" me to move to the village; rather, the originative case marks
   it as the origin of my motion (walking). Similarly, the receptive case
   marks the destination of my walking.
   Although one might think that the locative case is more appropriate for
   "town" and "village", in the conlang the locative is used for the
   *place* of the event -- in this case, that would be the place I'm
   currently walking through, between the town and the village. So, if I
   wanted to say that I'm walking from the town into the village, and I'm
   currently passing through the countryside, I'd say:
        the.town(org) walk(verb) I(cvy) the.countryside(loc) the.village(rcp)
   You can think of this as equivalent to "From the town I walked to this
   countryside, heading towards the village".

2) Non-receptive passive noun:
        This box is given to the woman.
   would be translated as:
        give(verb) this.box(cvy) the.woman(rcp)
   Here, "this box" is in the conveyant case, not the receptive, because
   it is what is transmitted through the action "give". The woman is in
   the receptive case because she is the destination of the action.
   (The verb in this case would be marked to indicate that its primary
   effect is on the box, not the woman, but that's too complex to get into
   here.)

> Examples:
>
> Feanor     hedent     sarn.
> AGT.Feanor throw-PAST OBJ.stone
> "Feanor threw a stone."
3) In my conlang, "stone" in the above sentence wouldn't be in the
  receptive case; it would be in the conveyant case:
        Feanor(org) throw(verb) past(loc) a.stone(cvy)
  (The "past(loc)" is just a temporal noun in the locative case indicating
   the time of the event.)
  The reason "stone" is not in the receptive case is because the verb
  "throw" is regarded as directional -- it means, to throw an object *at*
  something. Since "stone" is an object being moved by the verb "throw",
  it appears in the conveyant case. A noun in the receptive case in this
  sentence would indicate the target of the throwing:
        Feanor(org) throw(verb) past(loc) stone(cvy) man(rcp)
  would mean:
        Feanor threw a stone at a man.

> Feanor     linnent.
> AGT.Feanor sing-PAST
> "Feanor sang."
4) In this case, the originative would coincide with the agentive.

> Sarn       lantent.
> OBJ.stone  fall-PAST
> "A stone fell."
5) Again, as in (3), "stone" would be marked in the conveyant case rather
  than the receptive case, although the receptive case *often* coincides
  with your objective case.

> Veanor     lantent.
> OBJ.Feanor fall-PAST
> "Feanor fell."
6) In this case, my conlang would translate it as:
        fall(verb) past(loc) Feanor(cvy)
  meaning, literally, "Feanor was falling", implying mid-air motion. Note
  the conveyant case, as opposed to the receptive case.

[snip]
> Are the originative and receptive cases used the same way?
Sometimes, sometimes not, as you can see from the above examples. Perhaps
one more example might be appropriate:

7) Direct action vs. indirect action on an object:
        I push the thief against the wall
   translates to:
        I(org) push(verb) the.thief(cvy) wall(rcp)
   Whereas
        I hit the thief with a stick
   translates to:
        I(org) hit(verb) stick(instr) the.thief(rcp)

From what I can gather, you would use the objective case for "thief" in
both instances, whereas my conlang wouldn't. Perhaps it might be because
what you describe as "active" languages focus on the agent, the cause of
an event. My conlang focuses more on the event itself, and isn't so
concerned with what caused it; it primarily tries to describe what happens
during that event, as opposed to marking out what is causing it.

> > - 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;
Same instrumental as my conlang.

> 2) an inanimate "subject" (as in English "The ball hit the goal");
My conlang would use the conveyant case for "ball", translating it as
something like:
        hit(verb) ball(cvy) the.goal(rcp)

> 3) an animate subject acting against his/her will
>    (e.g. a soldier following orders).
Depending on context, my conlang may or may not use the instrumental in
this case. If it was a sentence like "the mastermind murdered the man
through his underling", then "underling" would be in the instrumental
case. If the sentence were "the underling murdered the man", then
"underling" would be in originative case.

[snip]
> 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.
[snip]

Cool. Nice to know my lang isn't *totally* off the wall :-)

Anyway, Nur Ellen sounds cool... do you have a complete grammar for it
yet? I think I might actually want to learn it, just to see how a "proper"
active language works (not that any one lang is an unbiased
representative, but hey, it's a start). :-)


T