Re: arguments

> you may compare accusative, dative, and beneficiary 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
I personally would choose the 120+120+120=0 view were I inventing a language
whose speakers perceived life as a fix circle. :-)
120+120+120 can equal 360 also - for a language whose speakers perceive life
as a mutable spiral.

> a special function when the verb doesn't agree with nothing.. :-S
Yes.

> yeah a special poetic function would 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? :-)
I believe the role of poetry is to play with language (e.g. the poems of
e.e. cummings).
Is its effect ever bi-directional? ::shrug:: It was in a minor way for
Esperanto.

> And for being intentionally vague, isn't useful only in
> poetry and literature? because I don't know why one would
> want to be intentionally vague
Hmm, I was thinking of it as something for use by politicians, used-car
salesmen, merchants.... maybe even theologians.

> 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
Hard to say re: creation, but I can remember reading that some linguists
theorised this was a major function of the passive in some languages.