Re: Conlang book

>That brings to my mind that conlangs could theoretically have a case for
>virtually anything. How do you people see this? If the conlang uses cases,
>we
>could indicate an important expression in an artificial case.
>
>Tero
Hm what about this: A lang where the only difference between the following
sentences 'd be the case inflextion on the wrod for "wall":

He walks to the wall (and stops there).
He walks into (the inside of) the wall.
He walks from the wall.
He walks out from inside the wall.
He walks inside the wall.
He walks through the wall.

Is there any natlang with sufficient cases for this?

Obviously, our theoretical lang should also have cases for near the wall,
behind the wall, in front of the wall, beside the wall, above the wall and
under the wall. That'd make a grand total of twelve cases so far. Then we
really ought to have temporal cases:

He walks before the wall (came into being).
He walks while the wall (is in existence).
He walks after the wall (was destroyed).

Add a "causative":

He walks because of the wall.

Sixteen ... and then we need all the normal ones like nominative,
accusative, two kinds of dative (different for adressees and
beneficiaries!), voacative and instrumental.

                                                Andreas

PS By all means, use different causatives for compelling and impelling
causes! And have a case for "like": He walks like the wall.
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.