On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 11:59 AM, David McCann <[log in to unmask]>

> On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 15:38:47 -0500
> "Mike S." <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > Thanks.  That's the best choice I can think of.  The problem with
> > "oblique" is that I would like reserve terminology to contrast core
> > and oblique arguments, and the use of "oblique" to refer to a core
> > case would be confusing.  I think I am stuck with "objective" for my
> > third case.
> The term "peripheral" can be used for the non-core arguments. Palmer
> uses capital letters for the names of roles, so the Latin dative is
> used for the Dative, and other things as well.

Huh, I hadn't thought of "peripheral" as an option for talking about
non-core arguments.  Good suggestion!

> In Tengol, the 5 cases are nominative, accusative-locative, genitice,
> dative-allative, ablative-instrumental. I couldn't think of any other
> names, either.

From what I have seen usually the names for core case roles of main verbs,
plus "genitive", will tend to trump other names (conventionally, whether
justified or not).  In your system, I'd just call them nom, acc, gen, and
dat; for abl/inst I'd flip a coin.  The problem with my gen/dat case (which
is the last of only three cases) is that the two conventionally recognized
functions that it handles are on the same top "level".  But perhaps
"oblique" is the way to go at this point.  It's not a badly misleading
choice, at least.