Re: Accusative, Dative ?
|Date:||Friday, May 28, 1999, 22:06|
From Http://Members.Aol.Com/Lassailly/Tunuframe.Html wrote:
> Dans un courrier dat=E9 du 28/05/99 13:10:17 , Josh a =E9crit :
> > Exactly right! That's why I usually refer to my objects by the gene=ric
> > 1st, 2nd and 3rd rather than accusative, dative, "jurative" (the adv=antage
> > of these being that the names are more memorable -- good for teachin=g the
> > language, as opposed to theorizing about it); they don't have univer=sal
> > meanings, but depend on the definition of the particular word, or in= most
> > cases that of its class.
> planning roles into
> standard maps as you do is necessary up to 2 or 3 roles. This implies t=hat
> the mapping of transitive and ditransitive voices are more precisely
> designed. Even a very simple language like Indonesian makes a differenc=e
> between final transitive (me-) processive transitive (me-kan), ditransi=tive
> transformative (memper-kan) or address (mem-i) because "to do something=" or
> "to have somebody do something" are not the same map as "to make someth=ing
> into something else" or "to apply something on something else". It's ve=ry
> stupid to have different prepositions for the core roles. Some are univ=ersal,
> some others are not. It would be better to have one preposition specifi=c to
> 2nd object for transformative, one for address, etc. Japanese "ni" and
> Indonesian "pada" are good for that.
Lojban makes them all arbitrary, but well-defined: