(tangent thoughts arising from) Active-Ergative langs (discussion)

[very interesting discussion snipped]

These example caught my eye, for entirely the wrong reasons

> Syntactically accusative:
>
> John kissed Mary and left. (John kissed Mary and he left.)
> John[A] kissed Mary[P] and (he[S]) left.
>
> Syntactically ergative:
>
> John kissed Mary and left. (John kissed Mary and she left)
> John[A] kissed Mary[P] and (she[S]) left.
>
In Gevey (as in English, I think), I would use a relative clause in
both examples...

John kissed Mary and he left [=then left?]
-> Jone injate ye Marh zhek evda rhaetalta ok

John kissed Mary and she left [=who left?]
-> Jone injate ye Marh zhek evda rhaetalta oc

The only difference between the two examples being that the last word
of the relative clause, "ok" tells the listener that the subject of
the relative clause is the same as the subject of the main clause (ie
John), while "oc" states that the subject of the relative clause is
the same as the direct object of the main clause - Mary. (In both
examples "zhek", which introduces the relative clause, tells the
listener that the (in this case omitted) subject of the relative
clause is relating to some word in the main clause).

Completely off-topic, but I hope people don't mind me making selfish
observations about Gevey in this manner. While I would like to take
part in many of the debates going on in the mailing list, I feel that
I have not studied linguistic theory, practice, (jargon, even) in
sufficient depth. I'm beginning to pick up some of the ideas and
terminologies through following the discussion threads, and from
checking out various web links offered. But for now, the only
observations I feel I can offer the group are on my own conlang. Given
time and study, this should change...

Rik

--
http://homepages.enterprise.net/rikroots/gevey/index.html
The Gevey Language Resource.