Re: Rating Languages

En réponse à Vasiliy Chernov <bc_@...>:

>
> Probably you're right; perhaps the above tells more about the grammars
> I
> used than about the language itself. But at any rate, the system did
> seem
> very complex and difficult to describe.
>
Of course, when you try to describe a trigger language with terms
like "accusative" or "ergative", the thing becomes quite difficult. But if you
describe it as it is, it's quite straightforward in fact. John Cowan gave a
pretty good explanation, but here's mine also (quite comparable to John's one
of course):
In trigger languages, the term that you focus in a sentence is marked as the
trigger (by a special article in Tagalog for instance, and a high tone on the
first syllable in my conlang Itakian). And to know the grammatical function of
this term, an affix is added on the verb (so it's the verb form that tells you
the function of the trigger). Other participants are marked directly for
function. Voilà! It's quite simple when you think about it. Of course, in such
languages, talking about "voice" is pretty much nonsense. A little booklet I
have describes that as "orientation" of the process towards any of its
participants.

Christophe.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr