Re: LONG: Another new lang

David Bell>>>>>>
From: Paul Bennett <Paul.Bennett@...>

> Grammar
>
> 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.
<<<<<<

Yeah.  I was (probably) rong to use this term, see below...

>>>>>>
> The system distiguishes the following cases (this also shows the usual
> word order): /* It's an horrendous abuse of the term "volitive", any
> better suggestions? */
>
> >Transitive Verb
> Subject - Ergative
> Verb - Inflected for Subject
> Object - Absolute
>
> >Ditransitive Verb
> Subject - Volitive
> Indirect Object - Ergative
> Verb - Inflected for Indirect Object
> Direct Object - Absolute
I'm confused!  I would have expected to see the principal objects take one
case (Absolutive perhaps) while the subsidiary objects would take a
different case (perhaps Dative).  Or have I bungled the meaning of
dechticaetiative?  You are correct Volitive is not quite what you mean here.
I would expect Ergative.  The pattern I would have expected here would be:

Transitive Verb
Subject - Ergative
Verb - Inflected for Subject
Object - Absolute

Ditransitive Verb
Subject - Ergative
Indirect Object - Absolutive
Verb - Inflected for Subject
Direct Object - Dative (or some other oblique case)
<<<<<<

That would indeed make more sense for a PO/SO distinction.  I had the word order
and case stuff first, then tried to come up with a way to describe it.  I guess
the term "mixed system" that I'd used may not have been right.  I'll have a good
long ponder.  I may well do as you suggest, dunno yet.

>>>>>>
> >Passive (Di)Transitive Verb with Exophoric Subject (and Ind Obj)
> Verb - Inflected with <-h>
> Object - Absolute
>
> >Ditransitive Verb with Exophoric Indirect Object
> Subject - Volitive
> Verb - Inflected with <-h>
> Direct Object - Absolute
The antecedent of an exophor lies outside the sentence, but the exophor
itself does not.  What case do the exophors take in these constructs?
Is there an antipassive construction?  While ergative languages may have
both a passive and an antipassive (my amman iar does) or just an
antipassive, it would be unusual to have only a passive.  Unless your
language is only morphologically ergative and syntactically accusative.
<<<<<<

Brainfart.  How to describe what I meant?  I don't know enough about technical
terms to start meddling.  What's the difference between passive and antipassive?
The exophor is marked by the pronoun(?) of "gap", and the "-h" inflection.  Its
antecedant may need a particle to tag it as such, I'll think about it.  I may
end up with a referrent tagging thing that got left of out Wenetaic when I
started growing 10 and 12 syllable words for the most basic of concepts (ie "my
hand"), and decided that enough was enough.  I can get to some FAQ-ish stuff
from www.zompist.com, can't I?  I'll go look...







*************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential
and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity
to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error please notify the
sender. This footnote also confirms that this email message
has been scanned for the presence of computer viruses.
*************************************************************