Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: 'Yemls Cases - Comments?

From:Jeff Jones <jeffsjones@...>
Date:Thursday, February 20, 2003, 16:28
On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 12:31:32 +0100, Christophe Grandsire
<christophe.grandsire@...> wrote:

>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 :)) .
That seems to be my claim to "fame" with 'Yemls, since hardly anybody else has done that. It can sometimes be fun coming up with a word that looks like it's borrowed from 2 independent sources, one phonetically and the other orthographically.
>> 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.
Got it.
>> 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 :)) .
I will, at least for now.
>> 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.
That's a bonus, finding that out. I wasn't sure which type of system it was. Although I can follow the explanations about active systems, I can't tell if they apply to 'Yemls, for some reason.
>> 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! :)
You're welcome. Now I wonder if any of the newbies could understand any of it??? Jeff
>Christophe. > > > >Take your life as a movie: do not let anybody else play the leading role.