Re: conjugating by object

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sally Caves" <scaves@...>
To: <CONLANG@...>
Sent: 05 January, 2003 10:06
Subject: Re: conjugating by object


> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jake X" <starvingpoet@...>
>
> > > I would need an example of what you describe here, Jake, before I
could
> > comment.  What do you mean by conjugating verbs by their objects, and
> > leaving the objects implied?   Do
> > > you mean conjugating verbs by their objects and leaving the subjects
> > implied?
> > >        "She loved the cat."  How would you do that?
> >
> > Sorry that I didn't elaborate.  I would state the subject but not the
> > object.  The object would be a kind of "trait," as it were, of the verb.
> >
> > So:
> >
> > She-NOM loved-3rd-SING-cat.
> >
> > Is that clear at all?
>
> Well, since you do state the object, in I assume a word that means "cat,"
I
> am still confused.  I think that what you mean is that the verb agrees in
> conjugation with "cat" and not "she."  Right?  A better example, since
both
> "cat" and "she" are in the third singular, would be "She loves all cats,"
> where the verb would be plural to agree with "cats."  Is that what you
mean?
> I see others posting examples of object-conjugated verbs.  But you would
> still have to have a word for "cats," right?  How can you leave the object
> "implied"?  Unless you mean an object pronoun.
>
> What natural languages do this?  It's fascinating.
>
I meant that I would incorporate the object.  Sorry if I completely confused
everyone,
but Thomas straightened me out.  Still, I am interested in languages that
make verbs"agree" in
person/number with the object.

Jake