On Monday 31 March 2003 04:01 am, Daniel Andreasson Vpc-Work wrote: > To name the two types "semantic" and "volitional" is something I don't > understand at all. "Semantic" leads my thoughts into languages such as > Tokana or Ebisedian > which mark semantic roles rather than syntactic function. I forgot where I learned that terminology, but this discussion with Sally convinced me that, like you say, it's not very clear. At first I didn't like the alternative (split-S and fluid-S), but in the end it would take less explaining and be clearer just to use that, I guess. > Another point to be made is that it's the verbal semantics > that is important in most active languages, not the semantics > of the NP (i.e. "S"). This is why most active languages > are head-marking and not case-marking (except for Georgian). Interesting, I did not know this. Enamyn leans more toward head-marking because of its noun tense system more than anything else. Having to mark each noun in "John of Stone Mountain's book" would be not be very utilitarian, when "book" is all that we need be concerned about. Ah, well, if it's also a common trait of active languages in general, then serendipity! > Hmm. I'm not sure I'm actually making things clearer. Well, you didn't muddy the waters any worse than I! :) :Peter -- Oh what a tangled web they weave who try a new word to conceive!