Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: some questions

From:Andreas Johansson <andjo@...>
Date:Monday, January 12, 2004, 7:54
Quoting Etak <tarnagona@...>:

> Hello > Could someone please explain the difference between > nominative/accusative languages and ergative/ablative > ones. (I think I've got the names right. I'm not > even sure about that...) They seem to crop up at odd > times in various messages and I don't know what they > mean.
Others have already explained nom/acc and abs/erg. I just thought I'd mention that these systems are also known as simply "accusative" and "ergative". Also, there are other systems possible - the most interesting perhaps being "active", also known as "fluid-S", in which intransitive subjects are marked either like the agent-like or like the patient-like argument of a transitive, the choice being made based, basically, on whether the subject is perceived as controling the action. Were English active, we'd have "I fall" if I voluntarily fell, and "me fall" otherwise. Should you want to know more about active langs, ask Daniel Andreasson for his paper thereon. [snip]
> Also, what are the "universals" that people > occasionly mention. Are they important?
A 'universal' is something that's (supposedly) true for most or all languages. Some conlangers feel it's important to conform to a reasonably high proportion of them, to make their langs realistic - others feel that violating them is good sport. Most universals seem to be broken by one or more natlang; few are truly "universal" universals.
> I'm working on an inflecting language and I've made > the case markers for nouns as suffixes. Would it look > too strange, or break some (unknown to me) linguistic > rule to conjugate verbs by adding prefixes. Having > suffixes for both nouns and verbs seems kind of boring > for my language. :)
Can't think of any natlang that inflects verbs with prefixes, but I'd be most suprised if there aren't any. [snip]
> P.S. Out of curiousity, is anyone actually fluent in > their conlangs, like able to speak a conlang without > having to think too much about it? How many people > have conlangs that have developed that far?
Me not. Andreas