Re: LONG: Another new lang

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.

Ed