anti-active case marking

Muke Tever wrote:

> > Another idea: an "anti-active" language.  Active intransitive verbs
> > (such as "to laugh") treat their subjects like direct objects,
> > while non-active verbs (e.g. "to fall") like transitive subjects:
> >
> > child-I stone-II throw
> >
> > child-II laugh
> >
> > stone-I fall
> >
> > (I and II are some kinds of cases, for which I haven't invented names
> > yet;
> > or use head marking instead.)
>
> Hmm, quasi-ergative-ish.  Actually my Hadwan will have started on the road
> to ergativity this way, and although I hadn't thought of putting in a
> distinction between active/non-active use of I/II, it's an interesting idea
> I may need to use...
Why that way?  The pattern I proposed is semantically absolutely
implausible, and I never intended it to be anything else than a joke.
I think it is a bad idea to use in a fictional natlang (i.e. in a
language
designed to represent a language that evolved naturally in a fictional
world) because it is implausible.

Jörg.