Re: Attached Verbs

Well, there's two different things that this kind of looks like --

* incorporation of an argument into the verb (more common with objects
than with subjects I would think)

* conjugation of the verb to agree with the subject, which then may not
have to be expressed explicitly in the sentence

This is like a combination of both, sorta.  So, cool. :)

The only really weird thing is, I wouldn't expect that an ergative
language would use the ergative/absolutive distinction with a linking verb
like "to be."  It seems to me like that would only be with actions.  Maybe
someone who knows more about ergativity can enlighten..

But I'm thinking that with accusative languages like Latin, you use the
same case for subject and predicate with a linking verb, you don't use
Nominative and Accusative  -- it's "Ego homo sum," not "Ego hominem sum"
so I would assume the same would be true for ergative languages, you'd
just use the absolutive case for both.

But then, maybe yours is a really different ergative language. :)

Ed






On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Patrick Jarrett wrote:

> Hey guys, I just got back from a trip. It seems I do my best
> conlanging on the road. I dont know if this is new, and since my reach
> of real languages is short I do not know if it is something I created
> or not.
>
> In my language, most verbs are regular words. But some more common
> ones, (forms of be, make) are attached to the nouns which do the
> actions.
>
> An example is the verb for be is -slo
> If I wanted to say "I am man" I would do as follows.
> pa (long a) is the pronoun for I,
> pa + tah (ergative case) + -slo + -ntel (the present tense ending) akee +
> ma(long a) (absolutive ending)
>
> the final sentence would be
> "patahslontel akeema"
>
> Is this new? Or did I reinvent the wheel :)
>
> Patrick
>

Replies