Re: Core Cases (was Re: Ditransitivity (again!))

Quoting "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh@...>:

> P.S. I'm also duly impressed by Lojban's dispensation with the natlang
> misfeature that one particular verb argument must always be present (eg.
> the nominative or subject). Ebisedian also dispenses with this
> requirement, having replaced the (in my view) cumbersome system of
> passives with a unified system where active and passive are identical.
> Take for example the verb _fa't3_ (to see); perfective _fww't3_:
>
>         fww't3 ebu'.            I see.
>         jhit0' fww't3.          She was seen.
>         jhit0' fww't3 ebu'.     I see her / she was seen by me.
>
> The active statement is formed simply by omitting the originative place,
> and the passive statement is formed simply by omitting the receptive
> place. When both are present, the distinction between active and passive
> is semantically irrelevant, and the Ebisedian neatly (if I may say so
> myself) uses the same expression for both.
I assume the changing tense in the translations is not intentional?

Tairezazh does much the same, despite having a rather run-of-the-mill
accusative case system:

Ta tesh             I see
Tesh senas          see her (=she was seen)
Ta tesh senas       I see her

The idea's originally nicked from Tolkien's Adunaic.

The sister lang Steienzh holds on to it's nominatives more forcibly, and would
say:

Ta teshsh         I see
Ta teshsh sens    I see her(/him/it)
Teshshez sen      She(/he/it) is seen

(_Sen teshshez_ would be more neutral syntax in the last example.*)

Nonetheless, it does sport the traditional Klaishic "zerovalent" verbs like
_kreshsh_ "(it) rains".

* This also has the additional advantage it cannot be interpreted as "seeing
she" with an active participle.

                                               Andreas

Reply