Re: CONLANG Digest - 21 Feb 2004 to 22 Feb 2004 (#2004-52)

En réponse à Mangiat :


>So, is it possible to have a coherent definition of subject and object which
>fits both accusative and ergative languages?
Difficult. In a booklet I have, "subject" and "object" are defined as 
relational things: "subject (of)" and "object (of)", and said to be 
meaningless without the (of). In other words, subjects and objects exist 
only as they relate to the verb, and can differ in semantics depending on 
the verb. Unfortunately, the booklet is not clearer than that, so I don't 
know how the notion stands.

>  One of my university text books
>(an introduction to linguistics) said it is the argument the verb agrees
>with- a definition which works fairly well with Italian, but... what about
>Swedish, for instance, where the verb does not inflect for person and
>number? And what about many Northern Italian dialects, where verbs agree in
>number with a 3rd person subject only when they follow it (when the verb
>precede  the subject it takes 3 sg agreement, even when the subject is
>plural)?
And what about all the languages that, like Basque, agree with the 
ergative, the absolutive and the beneficiary (dative) of the action? :))) 
With the fact that the absolutive mark is the only one *all* verbs always 
have (the ergative agreement exists only for transitive verbs, and the 
beneficiary is often used but usually optional), it would mean that the 
subject here is what we usually call the object. And my little booklet 
agrees with that :)) .

Christophe Grandsire.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

You need a straight mind to invent a twisted conlang.