Re: arguments

Joseph a.k.a Buck wrote:

> > But, when a verb has a subject, a direct and an indirect
> > object, and a beneficier, it doesn't agree at all
>
>This is the part which disturbs me. This means that a base/root verb agrees
>with nothing even when surrounded by plenty of things. After so many other
>situations of agree, it's almost like "Eek, too many things to choose from,
>so I won't choose any".
Ho! if you prefer, just don't say it that way :-)

you may compare accusative, dative, and beneficier to 3 vectors pointed in 3
directions spaced out of 120 degrees, when there's only one vector, it goes
in that direction and agrees with, when there are two, it goes exactly
between those and agrees with both, when there are the three in the same
time, the sum is equal to zero

The only moment when that example doesn't work is when there are none of
these three arguments and that it agrees with the nominative if there's one
and with nothing if not


>Where I creating this conlang, I might assign this a
>special function (e.g. poetic, being intentionally vague, spiritual
>communing). Yet, this is your language, so just because it causes me to
>pause means nothing really.
a special function when the verb doesn't aggree with nothing.. :-S

yeah a special poetic function wouldd be interesting but does a language can
really develop *for* poetry and help it? Isn't the role and goal of poetry
to develop *from* the language and not the reverse? :-)


And for being intentionally vague, isn't useful only in poetry and
litterarature? because I don't know why one would want to be intentionally
vague

ok yeah I see one: I'd not shoot "Mom, I've broke your car, goodbye!" but
probably "Mom, your car's been broken, goodbye!", but the passive has
probably not been created for this.. :-P

- Max