Re: Syntax in an Ebisedic language

Christopher Wright wrote:

>I've yet another project, but the only reason I approach now is to gain
>the advice and pilfer the experience of many far wiser than me.
>
Have fun, but no-one said I was any wiser than you :)

>The cases I have are originative, essive (I think that's the right word;
>used as "to"), beneficient, genitive, and locative. I hope that they do
>not mirror too greatly your cases, H.S. Teoh. I'll try to keep them
>different (read: more rational ;)))
>
So many conlangs are accusative; so many others are ergative. What's
wrong with being Originative? (or Ebisedic?).

>My question was one of word order. How would I arrange sentences?
>
However you want?

>Based on what?
>
Whatever you want?

>The cases used can change based on the relationship emphasized[1],
>so the cases themselves would likely be useless for this.
>
What do you mean? I don't see why, just because what we would see as the
doer might be the receiver in one sentence and the originator in the
next, word order would care. Have I grossly misunderstood you?

>Perhaps it is accusative or ergative in word order but totally alien in cases?
>
You could just decide that a noun in the originative case should be at
the start of a sentence and one in the essive at the end, with the
benefactive coming after the verb and others coming before it in a
random order; the originative and essive and perhaps benefactive cases
might be unmarked other than by word order.

Or you could use fronting (or backing :) ) for emphasis; in your
examples: 'I-ORIG got bowl-GEN boy-ESS' could be the normal word order,
but 'boy-ESS bowl-GEN got I-ORIG' could mean 'It was the boy (rather
than the girl) whose bowl I took without regard for what he wanted' and
'bowl-GEN boy-ESS got I-ORIG' might be 'It was the bowl (rather than the
plate) whose taking away from the boy I initiated'.

With this case system, I'm not sure that terms like 'nominative' and
'ergative' make sense, so I don't think you'd be able to superimpose one
on the other. (Though given 'I hit him' and 'He was hit (by me)', one
might suggest that the subject of a verb was the sentences primary focus
and the direct object its secondary focus.)

Or maybe you also have noun classes. Animates come before the verb,
inanimates come after.

--
Tristan                  <kesuari@...>

There's no such thing as an infinite loop. Eventually, the computer will break.
-- John D. Sullivan