Re: Rinya cases

Daniel Andreasson wrote:
>
> Hello all.
>
> Okay. I've got a serious case problem. My Rinya is
> ergative. As you know this means it marks semantic
> roles instead of syntactic functions. Now I've reached
> the point where I noticed that I could distinguish
> between actions that are volitional and those that are
> not by using different cases.
>
> In intransitive (itr) sentences this is not a problem.
> I either use the ergative case, which marks the agent and that
> the action is made on purpose), or the absolutive case
> (in most cases the subject of itr sentences is patient
> or experiencer) which marks that the action is done
> involuntarily.
>
> Now to the real problem. Transitive sentences with verbs
> of which the subject isn't the agent. To show that that
> the action is non-volitional the "subject" should be marked
> with the absolutive case. But then what happens to the
> "object"? I can't use the ergative for that.
>
> I'm thinking of introducing a new case to mark the
> Influenced Object/The Experienced, OBJECTIVE.
>
> Example:
> "Will looked at a mouse."
> Will is agent, he deliberately looked at the mouse.
> He was acting. Will = Erg. ; Mouse = Abs.
>
> "Will saw the mouse."
> Will is the experiencer, and mouse is the experienced.
> Will didn't act, he just happened to see the mouse.
> Will = ABS. ; Mouse = OBJ.
>
> Note that I want to have the same verb in both sentences
> and don't want to inflect the verb (as e.g. Teonaht does).
> I want to show the semantic roles just using different
> cases on the noun phrases.
>
> Thus:
>
> Agent = Ergative
> Experiencer/Patient = Absolutive
> Recipient = Dative
> Instrument = Instrumental
> Influenced Object/The Experienced = Objective ??
>
> Am I missing something here? What is the "normal" way
> of doing this? Comments, please.
> Perhaps the wrong time to ask this when most people
> seem to be no-mail. Especially the king of ergative
> case, Nik Taylor.
>
> Daniel Andreasson
> http://conlang.nu
        In most ergative languages that make such a difference between
volitional and unvolitional subjects, it is the case of the subject that
always changes, wherever in transitive or intransitive sentences. For
transitive sentences where the subject is unvolitional, the case used
for the object is still the absolutive, but the case for the subject is
generally the instrumental or an equivalent case.

        But your way of doing it seems just fine also. I find it interesting
and original. Why not using for your objective another case already
existing? I think a spatial case would be just fine. In your example:
"Will saw the mouse", "the mouse" is a kind of 'origin' of the action
and not only the object of it, the 'experienced' as you say. So a
'delative' or an 'originative' for this object would be just fine. But
here those are only my own ideas, just do what you want.

--
        Christophe Grandsire

        Philips Research Laboratories --  Building WB 145
        Prof. Holstlaan 4
        5656 AA Eindhoven
        The Netherlands

        Phone:  +31-40-27-45006
        E-mail: grandsir@natlab.research.philips.com