Re: Trigger language?
|From:||H. S. Teoh <hsteoh@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, January 22, 2003, 4:32|
On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 02:04:15AM -0500, vaksje@GMX.NET wrote:
> >> H. S. Teoh wrote:
> >Ebisedian handles this differently, because it has no concept of subject
> >or object:
> Aren't subject or subject universal terms for any language?
As far as I can tell, there is no way to tell what is a subject in an
Ebisedian sentence except by context and semantics.
> After parsing everything, I suppose you can assign the subject or object
> even if the language doesn't have cases that correspond to them at
In that case, I suppose one would have to conclude that in a verbal
Ebisedian sentence (there are non-verbal sentences, but I won't get into
that here), the subject must be the verb. I say this because:
1) In a verbal sentence, it is the only mandatory word. Nouns of any case
can be omitted or elided, *even* if it is not implied. E.g., for the
verb "to see", you can say
"I(rcp) see(v) man(org)"
which means "I see a man"; or
which means "I see (something)", or
which means "the man was seen", or
which means "a sighting happened".
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
This, in a nutshell, is how a Bisedi thinks.
> Hence why I used "subject", since I haven't decided on it yet. So like you
> I don't have the concept of the accusative (object), but I guess I do have
> a nominative.
Like I said, if Ebisedian ever has a nominative, it would be the verb.
> > Man(org) tell(v) something(cvy) someone(rcp)
> > "The man told something to someone."
> Now _that's_ exactly what I meant, unfortunately I swapped
> something/someone in a typical late night action. ;)
Oh, I see. :-)
Leather is waterproof. Ever see a cow with an umbrella?