Re: conjugating by object
| From: | tim talpas <tim@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Sunday, January 5, 2003, 0:08 |
|---|
In one of my langs, taiksiri, verbs agree with whatever carries absolutive
case... so for intransitive verbs, it agrees with "subject", and for
transitive verbs it agrees with the "object".
It gets further complicated by the fact that the markers are relative,
thus:
ios aloan = i love him/her
ios a.loa.n
1sg-ERG TRNS.love.CTRP
äe aloan
äe a.loa.n
2sg-ERG TRNS.love.CTRP
you love me
to say "you love him/her", you need a different marker:
äe aloal
äe a.loa.l
2sg-ERG TRNS.love.CTRF
where CTRP is one of 3 combinations: 3-ERG/2-ABS, 2-ERG/1-ABS, or 1-ERG/3-ABS
and CTRF is: 1-ERG/2-ABS, 2-ERG/3-ABS, or 3-ERG/1-ABS
for more detailed explanations, look at http://www.zece.com/conlang/taiksiri
-tim
http://www.zece.com/conlang/
#
# In an earlier version of my new conlang G'oxayo (which I plan to post =
# soon, when I work it out more), I was considering conjugating verbs by =
# their objects, and leave the object implied unless necessary. Has =
# anyone considered something similar to this in their conlangs? =
# (Incidentally, just to peak everyone's interest in G'oxayo, the language =
# is built so each "sentence" is pronounced as one very agglutinating =
# "word" and even most pronouns are derived from others.)
#
# Jake
#