 |
 |
On 20/06/2011 21:44, Nikolay Ivankov wrote: > On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 9:23 PM, R A > Brown<[log in to unmask]> wrote: [snip] >> Yes, this was my reaction, also. I had difficulty in >> following some examples because of this. > > > Well, that's why I've been thinking about different > names. In fact, I have and will have difficulties in > decoding what I have been expecting to say. The cases > should basically mean whether the "distance" between > subject and object decreases, increases or remains 0, > with the case marker being carried by the subject. ..which is not what is normally understood by _case_. > I've > adopted the LOC-ABL-ALL just in order not to look totally > ignorant. But the trouble is that your examples were not using these traditional terms in ways that are normally understood. If you use traditional terms for something very different, then it's likely to cause confusion. > Maybe we can try other cases (again Latin, and > again trying to look a shmort fella): Sorry - only _proximative_ is correctly derived from Latin :( > Accedative or Proximative for ALL, _accedative_ threw me to start with! I assume it's to do with _accede_ in which case the correctly derived term would be _accessive_: Latin: accedo, accedere, accedi, accessum The -ive adjectives are formed from the the supine, the 4th principle part. While in fact *accessive doesn't (yet) exist, _proximative_ does. The proximative case is found used in the conlang Gimív and is used by some in describing the grammar of Tok Pisin. One would expect _house.PROX_ to mean "near the house." > Essetive for LOC Badly formed :( The _essive_ case exists in Finnish and quite a few other languages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essive_case > and maybe Abirative for ABL. That one completely foxed me till I remembered Esperanto _iri_ - at least, I am assuming the -ir- bit is to do with "go". The Latin for "go way" is: abeo, abiri, abi(v)i, abitum Therefore _abitive_ > This can make the notation clearer. I am afraid not. As the suffixes are being attached to the _subject_ of the sentence, calling them cases of any sort is IMO confusing - maybe 'relational suffixes'? If the relational suffix attached to the subject shows whether the "distance" between it and the object "decreases, increases or remains 0" then perhaps > with the case marker being carried by the subject. Suggestions: "decreases" - accessive ? "increases" - abscessive ? "remains 0" = stative ? [snip] >> Which makes me wonder if what Nikolay is describing is >> really _case_ at all, but something more like the >> clitics referred to above. >> >> Indeed, I see no reason why a verbless language needs >> case its ancestor language. >> > > I have to admit that for me it is still quite hard to say > when a clitic ends and postfix begins. > I suppose an enclitic (clitic tacked onto the end) is more versatile and independent, whereas a suffix has to attach itself without anything coming in between. The English possessive _'s_ is an enclitic, e.g. The man who live next door's dog (= the dog belonging to the man who lives next door) The woman I met yesterday's daughter (= the daughter of the woman [whom] I met yesterday) etc. >> >> [FIRST THOUGHT] I'd just like to observe that the >> Insular Celtic languages make a great deal of use of >> "to be" and the so-called 'verbnoun'. That the >> 'verbnoun' is grammatical a noun can be seen in that >> the 'object' is expressed in possessive/ genitival >> form. As the verb "to be" is not uncommonly dropped in >> many languages I can see how languages like Insular >> Celtic ones could develop into verbless languages. >> > > As I have written somewhere around, I just do not like > the _be_ verbs. If my goal was just to create a verbless > language from the ordinary one just to make an example, > I'd definitely stick to the _be_ verbs. However, I've > had my conlang in mind, where > > 1) I've been thinking about noun classifiers 2) tried to > get rid of _be_ verbs as much as possible 3) didn't want > to have too many cases 4) tried to introduce ergativity > as much as possible 5) wanted to have a 3-consonant > language with umlaut, vowel harmony (as in Turkish) and > consonant change (as in Irish) > > So I gave myself a pleasure not just to construct > something verbless, but also to test my ideas and make > the language look naturally irregular You'll have to work hard to make it more irregular than Christophe's _Maggel_ :) [snip] >> I'll use, however, Classical Latin (of the 'Silver' >> type) to illustrate the point. >> >> Note: _visus (gen. visūs) - noun, masculine = seeing, >> looking, >> >> Examples: ego in visu tui = I see you I.NOM in >> "visus" you.GEN faculty of sight, vision. >> >> ego post visum tui = I have seen you/ I saw you >> >> ego ante visum tui = I shall see you. >> >> The verb "to be" was often omitted in short sentences >> by writers in the Silver period (early 1st cent to mid >> 2nd cent CE), therefore the three sentences above: - >> have no verbs. - are perfectly grammatical Latin >> sentences (tho admittedly they would seem a bit bizarre >> :) >> > > Wow! > > You may probably know that modern Russian omits copula in > presence. I know - and Russian isn't alone in doing that. -- Ray ================================== http://www.carolandray.plus.com ================================== Nid rhy hen neb i ddysgu. There's none too old to learn. [WELSH PROVERB]