Acc/Erg/Etc sans Cases
|From:||Arthaey Angosii <arthaey@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, March 26, 2003, 21:02|
Emaelivpeith Christophe Grandsire:
>Cases are not necessary to categorise a language as
I didn't know that! Now I can figure out what Asha'ille is. :)
>"he kicked the woman and ran away".
Y'know, you guys are too violent for me. The last CONLANG sentence I
translated, I had to invent a word for "to hit". Now "to kick." Hrmph!
Gghechivpaerdhi ar ne cahnen t'lámasaev.
/XE_X"XEtSIv,erDI Ar n@ kAnEn t@"lAm@sev/
kick-PST-UNS he OBJ: woman and-flee
The second verb is understood to take the same suffixes as the most recent
verb with explicit suffixes. Therefore, |lámasaev| is understood to
reallly mean |lámasaevpaerdhi|, but you won't need to say any more suffixes
until you wish to change the ones declared by |gghechivpaerdhi|.
If I wanted to say instead "he kicked the woman and _she_ ran away", it
Gghechivpaerdhi ar ne cahnen t'lámasaev ah.
kick-PST-UNS he OBJ: woman and-flee she
But things get complicated by the new way person conjugation works... I'll
get a post out on it.
>The unexpressed subject of the
>intransitive verb is taken to be the subject of the transitive verb. The
>language is thus syntactically accusative, since it maps subjects of
>intransitive verbs with *subjects* of intransitive verbs.
So Asha'ille is syntactically accusative, right? It doesn't care whether
the verbs involved are transitive or intransitive, though -- whatever the
subject, object, tense, etc of the preceding verb, the same information is
copied onto the following verb(s).
Bia Sharidim ("New Words")
|gghechiv| /XE_X"XEtSIv/ "to kick". from |ghachiv| "to slap, hit"
|lámasaev| /"lAm@sev/ "to flee, run away" esp. with the intention of
escaping from (deserved) punishment. from
|mmasaev| "to walk"
|-aerdhi| /"erDI/ conjugation for a general, unspecified person