En réponse à Jeff Jones <jeffsjones@...>:
>
> Good. Your reply counts as an expert comment, then!
>
LOL. I didn't mean it quite that way, but thanks anyway :)) .
>
> More or less. Each case is "officially" named after the prefix that puts
> it
> into the subject position. Extrahistorically, the prefixes were just
> mnemonics for Agent, Patient, and Complement, respectively, but I ended
> up
> using the identically written syllables for the orthographic forms
> (pronounced [gV] or [gO], [bE], and [t_S_hE]).
Nice! :)) . It's true that using the Latin alphabet as a syllabary can bring
funny things :)) .
>
> I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that the presence of the
> trigger
> affix depends on the class of the trigger argument (my subject) rather
> than
> on the class of the verb (my head word) as I have it?
>
Exactly. But the underlying argument is the same: you don't give a special mark
when the behaviour of something is its default one. So in Itakian you needn't
explicitly mark the function of an actor trigger if the trigger is of class 1
or 2, because the human classes are by default active. In the same way,
in 'Yemls an action verb needed be marked for the A-voice, because by default
it expect its first argument to be the agent.
>
> Good question. I've considered a lot of things, including additional
> prefixes, but what I have been using is a rule requiring the 2nd
> argument
> to be present if the 3rd argument is present. This rule doesn't apply
> if
> the 2nd argument is undefined. Also, there are probably some
> situations
> where it's clear which of the 2 cases is meant.
>
True. But you may still want to keep a 2nd argument there, even a dummy one.
This is a very natlangy thing to do :)) .
>
> Let's see. For actions, the A-case argument is the agent who is
> directly
> involved in the action. For other words, the A-case argument is an
> indirect
> agent or cause.
Looks good to me :) .
The P-case argument is what's affected by the action,
> undergoes a change of state, perceives or receives something, or is
> simply
> an intransitive subject.
It looks like you've taken a bit of split-S in your system too :)) . So P also
indicates for instance the subject of a verb like "to see".
The C-case argument "clarifies" an action.
> It's
> used as the object of perception, a required complement for
> relationship
> words, or as a 2nd "object".
>
Your system really looks like a Split-S or Fluid-S system.
> Does that help? I suppose I could come up with examples (using mostly
> English words) if not.
>
That helps quite a lot indeed. Thank you for the explanation! :)
Christophe.
http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr
Take your life as a movie: do not let anybody else play the leading role.