Print

Print


>> The latest lang that I've been working on, Mulesuax, is quite analytic.
>> While it doesn't feature case endings, it does feature case particles that
>> come before the noun in question, as Mulesuax is strongly head-initial.
>> 
>> So _ua_ is used for 'X is a Y', which happens to be the third person
>> singular pronoun (dua for the plural):
>> _ua ba mulessuas mo ttlamt_
>> is-subj.-Mulesuax-d.o.-language
>> 'Mulesuax is a language'
>> 
>> For adjectives, 'X is Y', the verb _banh_, to have, is used:
>> _banh ba do-kksums mo liksia_
>> have-subj.-pl-shaman-d.o.-honourable
>> 'The shamans have honour/The shamans are honourable'
>> The case particle does a sort of nominalisation on the adjective, so
>> either translation is acceptable.
>> 
>> For both of these constructions, it's simply verb-subject-direct.object
> 
> 
> nice. wait, so: 'd.o.' is ... "direct object"?? you put your predicate noun
> (and adjective) in the direct object case?
> 
> i was really hoping someone would respond who does that.
> 
> 
> matt

Yes, it stands for direct object. I haven't decided how intransitive verbs will dictate case, but I think I'm going to have a simple accusative/nominative distinction. Then maybe I can drop the subject of a transitive phrase and it won't be confused as an intransitive phrase?

Out of all my case markers I thought that the direct object case worked best in this circumstance... And to me it seems natural enough but I might be mistaken. Is there any reason that this construction is odd?


James