Re: Active languages, part 2
|From:||Patrick Littell <puchitao@...>|
|Date:||Tuesday, August 9, 2005, 2:30|
On 8/7/05, Carsten Becker <naranoieati@...> wrote:
* According to Andréasson, active languages rather tend to
> mark the possessee instead of the possessor, or did I get
> that wrong? This would be called Construct Case then,
> wouldn't it?
Correct, although "construct state" is a better term for it. Cases occur on
nominal dependents, states occur on nominal heads.
> * Another point is that I decided to make Tarśanian split-S,
> I just have not decided yet whether the split should be
> based on control, Performance/Effect/Instigation (he calls
> it P/E/I for short).
While we're in a head-marking sort of mood, there's an interesting feature
in some NW Solomonic languages (Oceanic, Austronesian) in which the
possession distinction between possessions under one's control and outside
of it -- similar to the alienable/inalienable distinction -- is mirrored by
a distinction between *events* under one's control and ones outside it.
So you could have an affix for "controlled" and an affix for
"uncontrolled", and use them on both nominal heads and verbal heads. The
actual NW Solomonic patterns are more complicated than this, but that's the