Re: Queranarran description - comments?

--- Andreas Johansson <andjo@...> scrievit:
> Quoting Costentin Cornomorus
> <elemtilas@...>:
>
>
> > Singular                        Plural
> >
> > Nom.    nima                    niman
> > Acc.    nima                    niman
> > Voc.    nimey                   nimanis
>
> Isn't there supposed to be universal saying
> that the vocative is the simplest
> form of the noun? Well, universals were made
> for breaking ...
I suspect there will be other universals yet to
break! [Must find that universals list...]

> Is there any reason to consider the language to
> have distinct nom and acc
> cases, seeing they seem to be formally
> identical everywhere?
It's done that way cos That's How Grammar Is
Done. ;) Pantoglosses, the great Alexandrian
grammarian, set out how all the paradigms will
appear and what order the Parts of Speech will
apear. (Think along the lines of a Heleno-Roman
Panini.) A lot of it doesn't make sense for Daine
languages, since they aren't human. Note that the
verbs don't have any tense forms; and note that
there are distinct masc/fem conjugations.
Pantoglosses's general Gramamr has to be reworked
a little for languages like Queranarran, lest the
description make absolutely no sense. [On the
other hand, his work has allowed the
reconstruction of Aryan about a thousand years in
advance of when it happened *here*; and has made
philology the preeminent science in the World.]

If I were writing this from a modern perspective,
I guess I'd say that the subject/DO forms are
identical and can be detected based on position
with respect to the verb, following the basic
scheme of SVO for nominal subjects and VSO for
pronominal subjects.

Padraic.


=====
la cieurgeourea provoer mal trasfu ast meiyoer ke 'l andrext ben trasfu.


--

Ill Bethisad --
<http://www.geocities.com/elemtilas/ill_bethisad>


Come visit The World! --
<http://www.geocities.com/hawessos/>







.