At 03:01 18/10/98 GMT, you wrote:
>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?)
>
Why not kjak? (I'm kidding, just kidding...).
>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?
>
Really? I've got a new project in mind where the unmarked case is
equative-attributive-dative.
>>> > 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.
>
>
I totally agree.
Christophe Grandsire
|Sela Jemufan Atlinan C.G.
"R=E9sister ou servir"
homepage: http://www.bde.espci.fr/homepage/Christophe.Grandsire/index.html