Re: inverse constructions

Paul Bennett skrev:

> Daniel Andreasson>>>>>>
> One more example:
>=20
> thel    yulo     e-gedh-ando        (iii)
> dog:ABS see:PRES OBV-bird-ABL
> 'A dog sees a bird'
>=20
> thel    yulo-vo      e-gedh-ando    (iv)
> dog:ABS see:PRES-INV OBV-bird-ABL
> 'A bird sees a dog'
> <<<<<<
>=20
> This is probably because I still don't understand "topic"=20
> (now, where's that darned FAQ gotten to?), but why not=20
> simply allow:
>=20
> e-gedh yulo thel-ando
> 'A bird sees a dog'
I know I shouldn't have brought PROX/OBV up. That was just
to show that if you're talking about your *father* taking
a *dog* for a walk, then you can be pretty sure what is
the topic of the sentence. Then you put father in the PROX.
But if it happens to be a really huge dog who actually
takes your dad for a walk, then you'd have to use the=20
inverse to show that it still is dad who is the topic
of our conversation, but currently a big dog is acting
on him instead of the other way around.=20

(i) dad.AGENT walks dog.PATIENT
'dad walks the dog'

(ii) dad.AGENT walks-INVERSE dog.PATIENT
'the dog walks dad'

Ex. (ii) implies that the roles are reversed.

Anyway. The thing I want to do is to mark that
on the verb. Or put the verb at the front of the
sentence to show that the roles are the other way around.

I think it's cool to be able to show a sociological
thing grammatically. That is, that a 1st person
is more important and therefore more likely to act
upon a second person than the other way around. And
if the other way around actually happens, then that
should be marked in some way.

Otherwise, your suggestion would be just great.

/ Daniel Andreasson

ps. sorry if I sound rude, that's not the intent.