Re: Meyadhew

Mau Rauszer wrote:
> C1: animals (man included)
> C2: natural powers (eg. water, fire), gods, body parts and plants
>(animate nouns in a less concrete sense)
> C3: inanimate objects (eg. knife) (which don't fit any other category)
> C4: abstract concepts (eg. love) (which don't fit any other category)
> C5: collective or plural-by-meaning nouns
> C6: places
> C7: time concepts
> C8: actions (which don't fit any other cathegory)
> C9: qualities (which don't fit any other cathegory)
> C10: emotions (which don't fit any other cathegory)
Interesting divisions.  What does the fifth category mean?

> 2. In Meyadhew, an inflecting-fusional-agglutinating language, there
> is a required particle (called Main Particle abbr. P) which is
> somewhat like a copula:: the various forms of lú (the acute accents
> are used here instead of macrons which i can't write in iso-8859-2)
>
> This expresses the time and various circumstances of the sentence,
> as well as the speaker's relations to the information (I want, I hope,
> I know, I've seen...).
I would consider this "particle" to be an auxiliary.

> 3. The action is expressed by the _verbal noun_ abbr. V which is the
> noun denoting the concept of the action. To this connect the verbal
> prefix which expresses the mood of the _action itself_ (this can be
> active, passive and stative)
Active, Passive, and stative are voices, not moods.

> 5. But the matter is, that Meyadhew has 5 cases,
>
> ablative
> dative
> genitive
> stative
> possessive
>
> the genitive is not the usual genitive but a "general adverbial case",
> which is also the basic form of the noun.
> The stative is being used for adverbs describing circumstances of the
> action.
> The possessive is the latin genitive case.
Why not call your "genitive" "adverbial" and your "possessive"
"genitive"?

> We have two cases that both can denote the main and the verbal adverb in a sentence.
> When the action comes from the main adverb and points towards the verbal adverb,
> (the main adverb is the source and the verbal one is the target)
> then M is in ablative, V is in dative. But this can be the opposite too,
> since it basically depends on the _meaning_ of the action.
So, basically for some verbs, the subject is ablative and the object
dative while for others it's the opposite?

> And for every sentence you should put the M and V in the right case even for
> actions like "eat" where it is hard to tell which is the source an the target.
>
> for "eat", the eater is in dative because is *receives* energy, food for the eaten and
> the eaten one is in ablative since it is the source of the food.
So, for a verb like "hit" it would be the other way around, the hitter
in ablative and the hittee in dative?

> 6. And you should stronly agree with the nouns: the Particle agrees
> with the Main Adverb by a prefix, the verbal noun agrees with the
> Verbal Adverb if there is one or with the Main Adverb too if there
> aren't any.
Interesting.  So, agreement is separate from nominal inflection?

--
"There's no such thing as 'cool'.  Everyone's just a big dork or nerd,
you just have to find people who are dorky the same way you are." -
overheard
ICQ: 18656696
AIM Screen-Name: NikTaylor42