Mathias M. Lassailly wrote:
>I think there is a lot of confusion regarding cases :-) I'd rather remind once
>for all what are the 3
>linguistically proven options (A) and explain again the solution (B) to make Carlos,
>Christophe and >
>Pablo happy, and at least not shock Herman and Nik too much :
>
>A. There are only 3 pure, therefore ideal, case systems in the world :
>
>1. Nominative/accusative system (NA)
>Pure verb-stemming predicate. Predicate is a process. Is axed on humanized experiment of process :
[snip]
>
>2. Agent-Patient system (AP)
>Tends towards noun-stemming predicate. Predicate is usually the noun state,
>instrument or result of
>process. Is axed on control over process OR attribution of instrument or result :
[snip]
>
>3. Ergative/absolutive system (EA)
>Halfway between 1. and 2. Tends from noun- towards verb-stemming predicate. Predicate is therefore
>stative, i.e. it is a stative verb experienced by the noun being (like 'the content') or featuring
>(like 'the wounded') the result of process. Axed on proximality :
[snip]
Thanks for the explanation.
[snip]
>I suggest :
>
>Trend towards noun-rooting predicate, so predicate is usually the tangible result or instrument so
>case (1) would be the AGENT who would be the one either being the result of process (1.1) or the
>instrument thereof (1.2).
>
>When noun-rooting predicate above not possible, then state-rooting predicate.
>
>ABSOLUTIVE case (2) (=former 'undergoer') would be the one either featuring the active
>result (2.1),
>or experiencing the instrument (2.2) or experiencing that state (2.3).
>
>Regardless whether the root-predicate is either an instrument- or result-noun or else a state, the
>ERGATIVE (3) is the indirect cause of result (3.1), the user of instrument on someone
>else (3.2) or
>the direct cause of state (3.3).
>
>PATIENT (4) is the one featuring the passive result (4.1), or subjected to the instrument (4.2) or
>suffering the state (4.3).
>
[snip]
>
>TO SUM UP we would have :
>
>(i) 4 base-cases
>
>1. Agentive
>2. Absolutive
>3. Ergative
>4. Patient
I agree with this. Let me say, however, that it's more or less
what I posted as a first version of the case system (long ago now),
tho I used nominative and accusative for agent and patient.
But I also included a "copulative" case to handle
things like "He is a friend", "He is the boss", and "He is old".
"He is old" would be replaced by an absolutive "he" + "to-be-red".
But "He is the boss" is an equation; I don't think this case
system could handle it properly... unless we have an equating verb
"to be".
>
>(ii) with a trend from result (bite) towards state (bitten/biting),
>
>
>(iii) from tangible result (wound) towards intangible result (image) : example : if 'bite' is a
>tangible mark, then 'kjak' is a result and 'to bite' result-rooted; if 'bite' is no tangible mark,
>then 'kjak' could be either an intangible result, a passive state ('to be
>bitten') or an active state
>('to bite') : we have to decide on a case-by-case basis.
Of course in this case I'd go for result-rooted.
>
>(iv) from passive state ('to be bitten') towards active state ('to bite').
>
I don't get what you mean here (and in (ii))
>
>I suggest we call the system STM (St Thomas' Meathod).
>
Fine. But why?
>(v) Then we also need a causative-factitive case 'to have/make someone do' : you can then put the
>negative before the case and spare MUCH trouble on designing factitive :
[snip]
Sounds fine.
--Pablo Flores