Carlos wabbe:

> Well, I can only guess, but probably inanimates were unlikely
> to be subjects and were always marked in those positions.

This seems very likely, yet I cannot come up with a single
natlang example of it. Anyone?

> Probably it was control at the beginning, but when Biwa became
> more and more isolating variation were only noticed in the
> pronouns which only had a degree of animate.

Well, the activity markers in natlangs is always either agreement
markers on the verb or pronominal affixes, so this seems natural.

I've never seen an active language which show activity on full

> Posible evolution:
> TV: transitive verb
> AV: active intransitive verb.
> PV: pasive intransitive verb.
> M: modal
> A: animate
>    Aa: animate agentive
>    Ap: animate pacientive
> I: inanimate
>    Ia: inanimate agentive
>    Ip: inanimate pacientive
>   VSO w/ cases    VSO w/o cases  subject fronting
>   TV M Aa Ip   -> TV Aa M Ip   -> Aa TV M Ip
>   TV M Aa Ap   -> TV Aa M Ap   -> Aa TV M Ap
> * TV M Ia Ap   -> TV Ia M Ap   -> Ia TV M Ap
> * TV M Ia Ip   -> TV Ia M Ip   -> Ia TV M Ip
>   AV M Aa      -> AV Aa M      -> Aa AV M
> * AV M Ia      -> AV Ia M      -> Ia AV M
>   PV M Ap      -> PV M Ap      -> Ap PV M
>   PV M Ip      -> PV M Ip      -> Ip PV M
> Where * are less used (inanimates rarely are subjects in transitive or
> active verbs).
> When you read in terms of subject an object:
>   Aa is always subject.
>   Ap is object in intransitive,

Do you mean transitive?

>      but only subject in pasive intransitive.
>   Ia is almost only subject in transitive
>   Ip is the usual subject in intransitives.
> When the active/pasive verb distinction disapears, both \Aa AV M\
> and \Ap AV M\ would evolve into \Aa V M\, analogous to transitive:
> \Aa V M O\.  While \Ia AV M\ and \Ip PV M\ would evolve in \Ip V M\
> following the most common pattern, but Ia reminds Ia in transitive
> verbs.
> Likely?

Well, I'm no expert on active languages, but it doesn't
seem more unlikely than anything else. Very neatly
thought out system.

> Well, it is not a big difference.
> A lenis stop could be read, in Biwa, as an unaspirated stop that
> would be voiced or devoiced but always released and never
> aspirated.
> A fortis stop could be a voiceless stop that would be aspirated,
> unaspirated or unreleased, but would always be voiceless.


> If I said voiceless/voiced distinction, it would mean that /d/
> is always voiced and /t/ is always voiceless.  Or if I said
> aspirated/unaspirated, /t/ is always aspirated and /d/ is always
> unaspirated.  Fortis/lenis is vague enough to describe how Biwa
> works.  Besides, lenis are shorter than fortis, lengthening
> previous vowel:
> padde /pVd-@/ [p_hV:dd@]
> patte /pVt-@/ [p_hVt't_h@]
> padse /pVds@/ [p_hV:ts@]
> patse /pVts@/ [p_hVt'ts@]
> padme /pVdn@/ [p_hV:dn@]
> patme /pVtn@/ [p_hVt'n_0@]
> where [t'] means /t/ with no audiable release.

Aha. Very clever. Very elaborate. You have a way with
phonology that is amazing.

> ><> BEKÄMPA SPRÅKDÖDEN <> daniel.andreasson@t... <>
> ><>    SKAPA ETT SPRÅK <> Daniel Andreasson      <>

> Jag tycker faktiskt om på den här satsen.
> Svenska är ju ett snyggt språk, tycker jag.

Tack. Jag är rätt förtjust i svenska själv. :)

Or for you non-swedophones:

"> I actually like this sentence.
 > I think Swedish is a pretty language.

Thanks, I'm pretty fond of Swedish myself."


<> bobekokämompopa sospoprorakokdodödodenon <> daniel dot     <>
<> soskokapoppopa etottot sospoprorakok     <> andreasson dot <>
<>                                             telia dot com  <>