Re: inverse constructions

>Organization: catty.com
>To: Multiple recipients of list CONLANG <CONLANG@...>
>Nik Taylor wrote:
>> 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,
Charles ju tok:
>I love that idea, but what about dative?
>Is there any natural language that uses only 2 core cases?
>Something seems to make 3 the right number,
>and I often wonder why.
>
I've wondered too, and as a result of the DeLancy readings you pointed
me to, I started looking for biological and physical correlates. He
attributes case to the basic single perception of figure and ground.
Stretching further to the purely physical realm, and taking the
simplest kind of objects, spheres, (cells, viruses, etc.) I ask how
they are found grouped in nature, ie how they can be packed. It takes a
minimum of 4 spheres to form a stable three dimensional structure in
gravity or held by attractive forces. I just tried it on the table
with some of my favorite organic grapefruit. That structure is a
tetrahedron. The tetrahedron is a very fundamental structure of carbon
based life. It is the minimal three dimensional structure and it
requires 4 elements.

The verb and its 3 arguments total 4 elements forming the basic
grammatical structure of a full sentence. Just as we have 2 dimensional
structures, such as writing, we can have 2 dimensional languages, as
attested by Nick, but they are not fully formed. They seem suited to a
"flatland" of fiction, not a relativistic universe. It would be
interesting to know the cultures they thrived in, and what was
hierachical structure there. They seem less suited to describe a three
dimensional world.

I find it interesting to speculate on what is the next corresponding
level of grammatical complexity for this model. It takes 6 more
grapefruit to form a supporting layer for the structure on my table,
giving a new pyramid of 10 objects total. On that theory, 10 is the
next natural number of cases. As we know, there is no shortage of cases
in conlangs. Is there a natural set of 10? One for each finger?

This URL gives the basics of sphere packing:

http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/sphpack.html

Jerry