Re: inverse constructions

Daniel Andreasson wrote:
> That is, the '-vo' suffix inverses the cases.
Why use case at all?  If the agent is left of the patient, then use the
plain form of the noun, and if the agent is right of the patient use the
inverse, that is:

il  yulo     im                 (i)
1sg see:PRES 2sg
'I look at you'

il  yulo-vo      im             (ii)
1sg see:PRES-INV 2sg
'You look at me'

> 1) The most problematic thing. Rinya is an active
> case marking lang. It marks semantic roles with
> cases, and volitionality. The dog is non-volitional
> and therefore is in the absolutive case. The thing seen,
> (the bird) then is in the ablative case. This may cause
> confusion when the roles are suddenly reversed.
> (That is also why examples (i) and (ii) are translated
> 'look at' since '1sg' is volitional and in the ergative.)
Use verbal inflections.  You could mark volitional/non-volitional on the
verb.  The inverse thing doesn't seem to make much sense when most
inflections are on the noun, it seems to me to belong to a head-marking
(verbal inflection) lang.

> Anyway. What do you guys think? Do you like it?
> Is it possible to do this? Did you understand
> anything at all? ;)
Very interesting.  I've thought about it before, but I don't want to
make a new lang, and there's no way it could be jammed into W.

--
"It has been postulated that, given an infinite number of monkeys
bashing away at an infinite number of keyboards, we could eventually
reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare.  Thanks to the Internet, we
now know this to be incorrect." - Anonymous
http://members.tripod.com/~Nik_Taylor/X-Files
http://members.tripod.com/~Nik_Taylor/Books.html
ICQ: 18656696
AIM Screen-Name: NikTailor