Re: GROUPLANG: optional features and case

On Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:28:51 -0000, "Mathias M. Lassailly"
<lassailly@...> wrote:

>I think it sums up suggestions made so far by Carlos, Pablo, Nick, =
Christophe, Tom et alia. Only Herman is swindled here :-{ although =
Isuggest he uses ergative as a nominative and patientive as an accusative=
 :
>
>ERG Ergative
>PAT Patientive =3D 'Patient', 'Accusative' and 'Avoiding'
>ABS Absolutive =3D 'Undergoer'
>AGE Agentive =3D 'Copulative'
>ATT Attributive =3D 'Genitive', 'Modifier', and 'Dative'
>I also vote for CAUS Causative because it's easy and saves time and =
dificult verbal suffixes.
>Let me know what you want to change or keep.
Well, the only case I remember suggesting was Genitive anyway, which =
falls
under Attributive, so this is fine with me. The term "agentive" is a bit
confusing, but we'll have our own "grouplang" words for the cases
eventually. (BTW, what should we call the lang itself?)

I also think that dative doesn't really belong under the attributive =
case,
but I'm not sure what would be a better place for it. Absolutive, =
perhaps?

>> > As I posted earlier I'd rather tag on the predicate whether it's =
verb or noun-rooted, then
>> >cases would be understood from context.
>> >
>> I didn't get that before! But it's a good idea to avoid confusion.
>
>I don't know whether Carlos and Herman would like it though. Let's make =
it optional.

It sounds essentially equivalent to my suggestion to use specific
derivational affixes. Making it optional would allow for brevity when the
meaning is obvious.