Re: GROUPLANG : POLL2 (Re: cases, modifiers, pron

Mathias M. Lassailly wrote:

>>
>> 2. I don't like "abs-me eye" for "I see". And "abs-me gift" I would
>> prefer to translate as "I am a gift" (which is not the same as "I'm given")
>>
>
>Ok. Then may I suggest you use agentive. Agentive is 'to be a gift', 'to be a hammer', etc.
>In another post I suggested that absolutive also shows indirect object such as
>'I'm given (something)'.
>
>'eye' is an organ. Either we dismiss organs as agents of verbs or we use another
>case : why not ergative ? :
>erg-me eye = I see. (English : 'to eye in the keyhole'). The result of the work of
>organs would imply
>absolutive :
>eye > image > erg-x eye = to see >abs-x image = to see
>ear > sound > erg-x ear = to hear > abs-x sound = to hear.
I see ;)
I think there should be a "to be" verb or copulative particle to say
"I'm an eye".

erg-I eye = I look (purposefully, I apply my eye)
abs-I eye = I see (just because I'm there) / I'm an eye (methaphorically)
I eye be  = I'm an/the eye (I and an/the eye are the same thing)

Then
erg-I image = I show (sthg/myself)
abs-I image = I appear (I'm seen this way) / I'm an image

I'm trying to make sense of all the possible distinctions, of course.
But I'm beginning to find the case system too logical, and certainly
not very natural (I mean not natural in the sense that I have to *think*
hard sometimes to use case X in situation Y; it doesn't pop out).

I'd prefer to have predicates in their verbal forms as well as the
nominal forms; i. e. eye/see, image/appear. I'm starting to think
the idea of merging nouns and verbs wasn't so good after all.


>> I agree on most of these. I prefer to have determination expressed by
>> other means, maybe as a suffix (here, in the DOG).
>>
>
>Thank you for providing us with a structure as example so that we can vote on it.
Use a postfixed article, if you prefer to call it that way,
like Scandinavian langs do. The article and the rest of the screeve
could merge (indeed, determination would be part of the screeve).

>> >3.2. Relative/resumptive pronouns (syntactic deixis) :
>> >
>> >latter/former/next one : dog erg-last_one pat-me bite = dog who bites me
>> >latter/this/next fact : erg-dog abs-this_fact hard pat-me bite = dog bites me hard; arg-dog
>> >pat-me bite
>att-
>> >latter_fact hard = dog bites me hard.
>>
>> I don't like this usage completely. Maybe for more complicated
>> sentences.
>
>Please provide us with your suggestion for subclause construction.
The above construction is alright for subclause construction
like dog erg-last_one pat-me bite = dog who bites me. But the
following sentences are not subclause constructions!

I'd use:

erg-dog pat-me hard bite  "the dog bites me hard"

where hard could be a root + an adverbial suffix.
OR

erg-dog pat-me bite-susp be_hard  "[the dog BITING me] is hard"

I prefer latter/former/next_one, not latter/this/next_fact.


>> Each mood should be a prefix of the verb; and each one should
>> have a negative form.
>
>So negative may be attached to mood or to verb ?
Yes.
Or to both: "I cannot not see" (it's impossible that I don't see)


--Pablo Flores