Re: very confused - syntax question

J.Barefoot wrote:
>
> You've all been so much help that every helpful response has been cancelled
> out by another helpful response, and then some. :-)
Yeah, I know what you mean. :(

>
> So I have devised a band-aid so that I can move ahead with the development
> of this language, which I want to be workable before the school year gets
> hectic.
>
> There are three new rules that I hope will cover the problem. (1) A noun
> phrase can be marked for argument even it is not the main argument of the
> verb. (2)"Kah," the benefactive bastard that started the whole thing, has
> been widened to include the sense of "instrumental agent." (3) The
> resumptive ending "-ena" shows that the "real" subject of the verb is
> outside the relative clause. (An interesting rule that doesn't actually come
> into play.)
>
> so we have:
> ta rusak@mi sa na akanyase ko kanyanal inya kah
> with my-brothers that the-prize was-won by them
>
> Where "inya" agrees with "rusak@mi" and because rusak@mi is marked as an
> agent, "kah" must mean "instrumental agent"
>
> While reluctant to ask another question, can anyone foresee problems with
> this scheme?
No, Jennifer.  Not me.  I'd have to see so much more of your conlang
before I could get that insightful.  But thanks, this makes things
clearer
for me.

> And I apologize for being so vague. Seems that's what started this whole
> mess. Now you see why I said I was a little frightened.
You mean because some of us got all squabbly and defensive and pulled
out
our pet peeves and passions over the mediopassive and other godawful
unreliable terminology?  Why should you fear THAT?  ;-) ;-) ;-)

Make the most of the fleeting summer, Jennifer!

Sally