Re: Meyadhew

Nik Taylor  <yonjuuni@...> 2003.01.30. 18:06:09 -6h-kor írta:

> Mau Rauszer wrote:
> > C5: collective or plural-by-meaning nouns
> Interesting divisions.  What does the fifth category mean?
Like people, natural elements used as substances (
water, stone etc. as the materia of sg.), and nouns denoting
a group of several things which still are one thing.
In Meyadhew, not every noun can be both plural and singular
and it is not expressed by the word itself. And it is also
a complexity that another class - another way of pluralizing.
(Still under construction)

> > 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.
Mm-hmm. I first translated is as the sole verb in Meyadhew, with meaning like a copula.

> > 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.
Okay, I was wrong. But I quickly translated from the hungarian name I gave it.

> > 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"?
The names were the rough translation of the original hungarian case names.
I just had to call the cases somewhat. But I have to work on the terms of the
language.

> > 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?
Sure. And it just dpends on the verb itself, but we can't really cathegorize verbs since
evey noun can be used as verbal noun and there 's only one verb, the auxiliary particle lú.

> > 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?
Yes. Since the hitter is the origin of the hit and the hittee is what receives it.

> > 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?
Yes. The inflection of the cases are depending on the last vowel/consonant of the word.
(Like in Latin)

-- Mau

Reply