| From: | Mathias M. Lassailly <lassailly@...> |
|---|---|
| Date: | Tuesday, October 20, 1998, 5:33 |
Absolutive case could show the 'indirect object' of transitive predicates in our conlang (= obviate / final / benefactive case). See English : 'I was stolen my wallet'. So why not : 'I was lost my wallet' where 'me' is absolutive : abs-me age/pat-wallet to-loose. Then you don't need passive nor indirect passive verbal affixes anymore in our conlang in the same way as causative can already replace factitive verbal affix. Let me give you examples : With verb-rooted predicates : he runs = abs-he to-run. dog bites him = erg-dog pat-he to-bite (pat- = accusative). I give him a house = erg-me abs-he pat-house to-give (abs- = 'dative' = final = obviate passive). I speak of him = erg-me pat-he to-speak. I speak to him = erg-me abs-him to-speak. I loose wallet = abs-me pat-wallet to-loose (abs- = obviate patient ; pat- = patient). It's already how this language works with noun-rooted predicates : he runs = abs-he to-run. dog bites him = erg-dog pat-he bite. I give him a house = erg-me abs-he age-house gift = 'house is the gift he gets from me'. I talk about him = erg-me pat-he speech. I say it = erg-me age-it speech. I talk to him = erg-me abs-he speech. I loose wallet = abs-me age-wallet loss. Mathias. ----- Free e-mail group hosting at http://www.eGroups.com/