cases (nom/acc vs sub/obj)
|From:||Adrian Morgan <morg0072@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, September 13, 2000, 0:03|
Thomas R. Wier wrote, quoting Padraic Brown:
> > I'd call our cases nominative, genitive and dative/accusative.
> I wouldn't -- why make distinctions that aren't really there? Most
> modern grammars of English use Subjective and Objective today, since
> the objects of pronouns are never distinguished from the objects of
I'd appreciate more info on this: What principles govern whether a
conlang's system is best described as nominative/accusative or as
My documentation chooses "nominative" simply because I figure this is
less confusing for a general audience. "Nominative" and "subjective" mean
roughly the same thing anyway, the former is more widely taught to
nonlinguists so there's a jargon factor, and the words "subjective" and
"objective" both mean something totally different outside of linguistics!
Is this a respectable decision, or am I misleading the reader?
web. | Here and there I like to preserve a few islands of sanity
netyp.com/ | within the vast sea of absurdity which is my mind.
member/ | After all, you can't survive as an eight foot tall
dragon | flesh eating dragon if you've got no concept of reality.