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

Pablo wrote :

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".
>
OK, then let's rather give up distinguish organs and results when using a noun to
make verbs. Let's use English semantics with the split ergative system Carlos
first proposed and you're now quite confident with. It's similar to English
verbs pattern so is easily understood by everybody.

> 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'd better stick to the split ergative system Carlos first proposed and you also
propose now. See below.


> 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).
>
So do I, but reversely :-) I have problem using split ergative because I'm used
to pure ergative system were absolutive is shows unaspective state, not an
active intransitive nominative. I find it difficult to mix both with an
'active' absolutive, a 'passive' case and an ergative turning into transitive
nominative when the 'passive' case is used. I mean : it's viable under the
condition you stick to English vocabulary. For example : perception, moods,
etc. command ergative as a transitive nominative unlike in ergative systems :
'to find gold' = 'erg-me pat-gold find' ?, 'pat-me abs-gold find' ?, 'abs-me
pat-gold find' ?

Reversely, for 20 years by now my own conlangs have been based on unaspective predicates
such as instruments and states, so it's easier for me to use pure ergative
where there is no 'passive' nor 'transitive/intransitive' distinction, nor many
'verbs' but mostly states.

However I'm OK with split ergative because it makes it easy to learn for Europeans,
especially English-speaking ones : they equate predicate to verb, absolutive
with intransitive nominative, passive with accusative and ergative with
transitive nominative. Then we don't need attributive anymore either and can
replace it with genitive. Let's do that and go ahead now :

4 cases :

ERGative = transitive nominative
ABSolutive = intransitive nominative
PATientive = accusative
GENitive = attribute attached to nouns.
on the English pattern.


> 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.
>
We did not merge nouns and verbs, we made nouns predicates.
But with the split ergative system above, we don't need to tell one from another
because the aspective (verbal) meaning of nouns will be the same as in English
so everybody speaking English will immediately understand the meaning of that
verb derived from a noun.

>
> >> 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).
>
OK : definite article like Swedish : kvinna > kvinnan > kvinnor > kvinnorna.


> >> >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!
>
Yes they are sub-clauses to main clause or predicate, not to noun. European
'adverb' and 'adjective' are sub-clauses more integrated (unaspective) to a
predicate or to the phrase and to a noun. In ergative systems where predicate
is a state, there is usually no difference between sub-clauses and
adjectives/adverbs. But you made a difference with 'modifiers' on the European
pattern. Saying that 'adjectives' are replaced with 'verbs' is one more step
away from ergative towards nom/acc system : you create a determiner more
integrated than subclause whose head is its SUBJECT, exactly like in English. I
agree with that system because it's perfectly consistent with split ergative.

> 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.
>
'this_fact' refers actually to the ongoing phrase, so this would be used to open a
subclause or adverb to the ongoing main clause.
But I'm OK for your adverbial suffix instead.

>
> >> 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)
>
OK

>
> --Pablo Flores
>
>
Mathias


-----
See the original message at http://www.egroups.com/list/conlang/?start=17696
--
Free e-mail group hosting at http://www.eGroups.com/