Re: conlang survey
|From:||John Cowan <jcowan@...>|
|Date:||Thursday, January 2, 2003, 11:20|
Christophe Grandsire scripsit:
> En r=E9ponse =E0 Mike Ellis <nihilsum@...>:
> > 12: Absolutive, Ergative, Genitive, Essive, Translative, Illative,
> > Locative,
> > Ablative, Comitative, Abessive, Purposive*, Instrumental
> > *a bastard word, I know. Find me a better one!
> I propose "final", which although not transparent has the advantage of be=
> made of Latin morphemes ;)) . I use it for the case in Azak with the same
> meaning. In French its meaning is more transparent since "fin": end can
> sometimes mean "purpose" (especially in the sentence "la fin justifie les
> I think English has the same shade of
> meaning of the word "end", but its connection with "final" is less than
> obvious ;))) ).
Yes, well, English used to have perfectly fine morphological transparency,
and then you frenchified viking barbarians set your @#$* feet on the
language, and it lost transparency forever. :-)
John Cowan firstname.lastname@example.org www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan
Consider the matter of Analytic Philosophy. Dennett and Bennett are well-known.
Dennett rarely or never cites Bennett, so Bennett rarely or never cites Dennett.
There is also one Dummett. By their works shall ye know them. However, just as
no trinities have fourth persons (Zeppo Marx notwithstanding), Bummett is hardly
known by his works. Indeed, Bummett does not exist. It is part of the function
of this and other e-mail messages, therefore, to do what they can to create him.