Re: very confused - syntax question

Dans un courrier dat=E9 du 06/07/99 14:59:02  , Jennifer a =E9crit :

>  Are you serious? Wow, that's great. And all this time I thought I was jus=
t=20
>  bad at learning natlangs.  I guess its because I expect them to do=20
>  everything english does? And you're saying they don't, even in their own=20
>  interesting ways? I should've known that.
er. let me put it another way : to my own standard english is
the most efficient language i know yet not the easiest - and by far.
whether other people actually find it this way too i don't know.
maybe i'm wrong - i don't know english history - but i sense like
some foreign pidgin grammar had crashed and merged with
german nitpicking, latin universalism, french frenchness,
danish unpronounceabilitinesshood and - no least - dutch stinginess.
for instance : english "oblique passive" combined with abouts,
withs, overs etc. is just genial. one voice can make up all
possible directive ones. i don't know any other language featuring that
- are there any ?
the only trouble is that you have to learn "with" when learning
"to be satisfied with" (i know plenty of french top executive uttering
"i'm satisfied of" and "it depends of" and righteously correcting
you should you dare express otherwise 'cause they're r=E9sum=E9-fluent).
but this is a problem any adpositional language shows anyway
except for those languages like indonesian deriving adpositions
from verbs. each of these adpositions may be called a "case".
look at Nik's Watakassi which features almost all of them
whether notional or spacial. maybe you don't realize it, but english
enables you to make any of these cases the subject of a verb.
which means that the verb changes of voice accordingly.
the genial trick of english is to use the same voice (passive)
for all and any cases beyond "agent" - and the same voice for "agent"=20
regardless the nature of the transitive voice (processive, applicative,
transformative, etc.). so you don't notice you're changing the voice of the=20
verb
until you hit the "agent-patient" border (but even then you can push ahead
with "medio-passive").
english enables you to disambiguate which exact voice you refer to with
the help of these prepositions made gerund or adverb or whatever
you call them i really don't care it's trifle peanut herein.
a prize is awarded > i'm awarded a prize (benefactive passive)
to speak about history > history is spoken about (topical passive)
to crave for leisure > *leisure is craved for (whatever final passive)
try say that in french : bonne chance ! ;-)

>  What exactly do you mean "make it a voice"? I must not understand the ter=
m=20
>  "voice."
> =20
>  Jennifer
cases are roles made understandable to rugby players
and voices same to soccer hoolifans.

now a piece of advice looking your ta-rusa-k@-mi stuff :
should you want to depart from english, then you may want to have a look
at japanesish topicalisation. you just have to add the topic tag to the
case you want. then you can make the verb agree with any other actor you wan=
t.

ta-rusa-k@-mi-KO kanyase kanyan

another way is to try spoken french and parachute pronouns wherever
you're so tired you can't think of a voice - not that french you learn
at school, hear on tv, read in newspapers, yawn on francophony meetings
but normal easy french you speak with french and which gave birth to creole =
:=20

mes fr=EAres, i-z-ont gagn=E9 l'prix.
my brothers-TOP they won the prize.

le prix, mes fr=EAres i-l-ont gagn=E9.
the prize-TOP my brothers they won it.

le roi i-leur a donn=E9 l'prix =E0 mes fr=EAres.
the king-TOP he gave them the prize to my brothers.

(now i have to wash my theeth with soap i guess).

mathias