Re: Trigger language?
|Date:||Wednesday, January 22, 2003, 13:46|
On Wednesday 22 January 2003 12:59 pm, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 07:34:32AM +0000, Joe wrote:
> > > 2) The Ebisedian verb really does behave like the head of the sentence:
> > > it *is* the subject about which the sentence speaks. The nouns are just
> > > the pawns, the footmen, the parameters, of this subject. It's almost as
> > > if you are describing everything from a detached, 3rd-person point of
> > > view: a sighting happened; a speaking happened, a meeting happened. The
> > > participants (nouns) in the event are, in a sense, auxilliary. The main
> > > point is that a speaking happened; and by the way, the speaker is
> > > acting as the originator of this speaking, the words are what is
> > > conveyed by this speaking, and the listener is acting as the recipient
> > > in this speaking.
> > >
> > > This, in a nutshell, is how a Bisedi thinks.
> > Did you see my point that the Verb is a subjective nominal inflected as
> > a verb unless the conveyant is present?
> Oh, is that what you meant? :-) I saw your message, but the terminology
> was a bit opaque to me. :-/ But I'd say, even if the conveyant was
> present, the verb is still the subject.
Hmmm...that's the thing, I would say that a conveyant is a Direct case, as it
invaribly refers the the thing that is moving, and thus this the actant or