Re: The Glyphica Arcana: Distinction

Hallo!

Jefferson Wilson wrote:

> [...]
>
> Take the following two sentences:
>
> "I look at the flower."
>
> "I see the flower."
>
> In the GA the glyphs for "look at" and "see" are identical in
> these sentences (base meaning: relating to the perception of
> light).  However, in the first case "I" uses the subject
> distinction, while in the second case "I" uses the indirect
> object distinction.  The verb could even be interpreted as "show"
> with the second sentence being translated, "The world shows me
> the flower."
Interesting - it is basically the same as in my conlang Old Albic:

Teráma               ma      am        lastal.
see-PRES-3SG:P-1SG:A 1SG:AGT 3SG:I:OBJ flower:OBJ
`I look at the flower.'

Teráma               man     am        lastal.
see-PRES-3SG:P-1SG:A 1SG-DAT 3SG:I:OBJ flower:OBJ
`I see the flower.'

This works the same with all verbs of perception: subject in
agentive case indicates deliberate observation, subject in dative
indicates more-or-less cursory perception.

This mechanism is part of a more general system marking degrees
of volition by the case of the subject.  A subject acting
volitionally is marked with the agentive case, one acting
accidentally is marked with the dative case, one made to act by
an external force is marked with the instrumental case and the
verb doesn't agree with it.  The latter is the only degree of
volition possible with an inanimate subject (as in the sentence
`The stone smashed the window').

This degree-of-volition marking applies only to verbs denoting,
rather broadly, actions; stative verbs have subjects in the
objective case.  (Old Albic is a fluid-S language.)

Greetings,

Jörg.