Re: LONG: Another new lang

> From: Ed Heil
> Dr. David E. Bell wrote:
>
> > From: Paul Bennett <Paul.Bennett@...>
> >
> > > The grammar is a mixed ergative-absolute / dechticaetative system.
> >
> > I'm impressed.  This is only the second time I've seen this term
> > used and the first in a conlang context.  I can't even remember
> > where I saw it before, but if memory serves, dechticaetiative
> > (which I believe may be the correct spelling) refers to systems
> > which make a distinction between principal objects (transitive DOs
> > and ditransitive IOs) and subsidiary objects (ditransitive DOs).
> >  Am I correct?  I know that Kiswahili exhibits this behavior, so
> > perhaps I came across it in my readings about that language.
>
> One wonders whether this wouldn't be just as good an analysis of
> English as making a direct/indirect object distinction!  Since we
> don't have case marking, it's not obvious that it isn't.  E.g.:
>
> (1) I wrote him.
> (2) I wrote a letter.
> (3) I wrote him a letter.
>
> (1) and (2) are simple transitives, and have one object --
> traditionally "direct," but why not "principal"?
>
> (3) is ditransitive, and has two objects.  Traditionally "letter"
> remains a DO as in (2) and "him" is shifted into being an IO.  But why
> not let "him" stay the "principal object" and invoke a "subsidiary
> object" for "letter"?
>
> Just a thought.
I don't think so.  Perhaps on a purely syntactic level one could, but
English has so few syntactic clues that almost any interpretation would be
possible.  But I think this might be semantically strained.  'him' here is
surely semantically dative being the recipient of the action in both (1) and
(2).  Thus

(1) I-NOM wrote he-DAT [IO]
(2) I-NOM wrote a letter-ACC [DO]
(3) I-NOM wrote he-DAT [IO] a letter-ACC [DO]

This exhibits a Dative distribution of case rather than a dechticaetiative
one.

David