--- Remi Villatel <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Costentin Cornomorus wrote:
> [---A lot of interesting things...---]
> As I said before, these names "subjective" and
> "objective" are _very_
> _badly_ chose.
> Let's call them (temporarly) "subjectal" and
> "objectal". If you re-read my
> previous posts making the substitution, I think
> everything will become clearer.

Mot especially - the problem presents. Subject
and object are intimately linked with case.

If you want to construct a noun system whose
nouns change gender depending on their role in a
sentence, I think you would do to come up with
better names!

> If it doesn't work, re-try with
> "gender 1" and "gender 2". These
> are just (badly chosen) *names.*

To be honest, I'll just stick with "subjective"
and "objective", replacing with animate/inanimate
or similar as necessary.

> These grammatical genders are meant to separate
> what is or looks like a
> person from what doesn't.

OK. Like I said at first, this is looking very
much like an animate/inanimate distinction.

> During my hard
> brainshaking, I thought about
> "personal gender" vs "impersonal gender" but I
> stumbled on "personal
> personal pronoun" and "personal impersonal
> pronoun" on my search&replace path.

Yes, I can see where such phraseology would be

> After a good laugh, I dropped this idea.
> If you have another idea,
> you're welcome. And not "animate" vs
> "inanimate"! I just doesn't feel... right.

It is fairly widespread and accepted. It might
help if you can communicate why these terms don't
feel right.

> I'm in big trouble because since yesterday
> (when I read your post), I'm
> trying to invent new names and I've found
> nothing better than neologisms.

Well, like I said, neologisms certainly have
their place. If you're using them to describe
existing subject matter (like if you come up with
the term "spanners" when talking about words like
"and"), you'd do us all a favour to also use the
accepted name (in this case, conjunction).

Such speculation can be very fun when you've
discovered enough of the language's culture to
begin to see how native speakers would describe
their own language.

> Circumstantial is what it looks like. Any
> circumstantial complement (time
> place, manner, etc) uses the circumstantial
> case and a postposition.

Sounds like a locative-ablative conflation.

> Emotional is a grammatical short-cut to express
> things like "to think that",
>   "to believe that", "to hope that", "to
> forecast that", and so on.

> kajš-hatŽltii [kaj9:^x\atElti_i] = my hope
> (litteraly)
> But the emotional case (š) turns this into "I
> hope that". And since the
> nouns can be marked for tenses:
> kajš-te-hatŽltii [kajš:^te^x\atElti_i] = my
> (past) hope = I hoped that...
> It helps to get rid of a lot of subordinates.

Hm. Looks like another locative contender (in my

> The initiator case represents what is sounds:
> the person/thing that begins
> the action. It's generally the agent/subject.
> There can also exist sentences
> without an initiator. (I won't tell more in
> this overview.)

Yep. Agent or nominative are pretty typical names
for that case. Patient or experiential are
usually reserved for non-agent expressions:

The boy-AGENT kicks the ball-PATIENT
The boy-PATIENT hears.

[If I understand aright.]

> The trio sender/flux/receiver plus a copula
> (proclitic/enclitic depending on
> the meaning) is the core of the shaquean
> grammar. Every action is described
> as a flux between the sender and the receiver.

Curious. Talarian grammarians describe actions in
terms of a dance between movement (actions and
states) and objects, essentially.

> Well, I think that's enough for an overview.

Much more understandable. Your descriptions were
very helpful. That's the problem when making up
your own terms (like sender or receiver) - you
have to explain them in much more detail than if
you'd said "ablative" and "dative".

> > Like "prejudiced observation" v.
> > observation".
> This made me laugh (Sorry!) but I haven't even
> thought about this meaning!
> What was I thinking about?  ;-)

No need to apologise. I figured I'd try anything
to understand why you used those particular words
to name genders!

> > So they can be either animate/inanimate (or
> > subjective/objective, to (probably mis-) use
> your
> > terms)? What makes the difference? When is an
> > animal subjective / objective? Why?
> When do you decide to use "he" or "she" to talk
> about an animal?

Me personally? I use 'it', lamenting the lack of
an epicene pronoun that both embraces all genders
but doesn't dwell on sex as a category. Same goes
for babies, by the way.

> When you
> think it's more a person than an animal. The
> shaqueans do the same. That's
> not very grammatical, just idiomatic.

Fair enough. Everybody has their system. In
Talarian, animals (and people) are referred to
with m/f pronouns, even if they are gramatically


To him that seeks, if he knock, the door will be opened;
if he seeks, he shall find his way; if he searches for a way, he shall find his path.
For though the Way is narrow, it's wisdom is written in the hearts of all:
if ye would seek and find Rest, look first within!  [The Petricon]


Ill Bethisad --

Come visit The World! --