zompist bboard

I'm sure there's a better word for it.

_________________
そうだ。死んでいる人も勃起することが出来る。
俺はその証だ。

See Haspelmath's article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ditransitive_verb#Ditransitive.2Fmonotransitive_alignment and the articles by Croft and by Dryer which Haspelmath refers to.
On pages 3, 4, 5, and 13 of Haspelmath's 20-page PDF, that system is called "tripartite".
If your language has four syntactic cases, one for S=A=D, one for P, one for R, and one for T, I think we (ZBBers) would call it "nominative-tripartite" according to a classification which was once part of this thread but which I can no longer find (I deleted it because it contained a very long table and several people (Dewrad e.g.) had complained to me that they didn't like my posts that contained very long tables; a mod (Salmoneus) agreed with them). Or maybe it would be "accusative-tripartite". At any rate the S=A=D case would be called "nominative".
I'm not sure what you would call the P and R and T cases. A P=R case would be called "dechticaetiative", and then the T case would be called "secundative"; and a P=T case would be called "accusative", and then an R case would be called "dative".
Maybe call
your P case "accusative",
your R case "dative", and
your T case "secundative"?

If you'd check out my thread on CBB you'll get a better picture of what kind of system I mean. It's not nominative-accusative but ergative-absolutive, with separate cases for patient, reciever and theme.

_________________
そうだ。死んでいる人も勃起することが出来る。
俺はその証だ。

So you have S=P, A=D, R, T?
Did you post a link here on this thread to your thread on CBB?

Link to my thread. Read through the whole page.

_________________
そうだ。死んでいる人も勃起することが出来る。
俺はその証だ。

Eridanian update:

Now Eridanian is Ergative-Dative

bo- = Ergative case, derived from English "by"

Bill ate = boBiu xeyee'
Bill ate breakfast = Biu xeyeedi' bobrafosh

Fo- = Benefactive
Ta- = Dative

Bill stopped Jack for John
"Biu xeshaafti' boJex foJaan"

Bill brought drinks to the party
"Biu xebraadam bojrenks tadapootei.

I'm pretty sure 'Bill ate' is an intransitive sentence, and thus would use the absolutive case.

_________________
p_>-ts_>k_>-k_>k_>-pSSSSS

"Eat" is a transitive verb for it can have an object. The sentence TaylorS showed is still transitive, it just doesn't show any object. An object is not always necessary.

_________________
そうだ。死んでいる人も勃起することが出来る。
俺はその証だ。

Verbs that can be either transitive or intransitive are known as "ambitransitive" verbs. But which verbs are ambitransitive aren't universal across different languages; "eat" is one in English, but you could definitely have a language where an object is required, or where two different verbs are used, one for the transitive sense and one for the intransitive sense*. And keep in mind that we're talking about morphosyntax here--an argument over whether the verb is underlyingly semantically transitive isn't relevant to whether a particular language marks the verb as transitive (AGT=ergative case) or intransitive (AGT=absolutive case).



*Ojibwe is one such language. In Ojibwe, transitive verbs have completely different inflections from intransitive ones, and pairs of lexically distinct verbs exist for many different verbs that are ambitransitive in English. To take the example at hand, there's wiisini "animate subject to eat [intransitive]" and miijin "to eat inanimate object": ingii-wiisin "I ate" vs. ingii-miijin ozaawikosimaan "I ate a pumpkin".

Not necessarily. In English, and possibly also in the conlang above, it is useful to discuss transitivity only in the sense of whether a particular clause is transitive, not whether a particular verb is. We don't learn anything about English "eat" by saying it can take a direct object, because very few of our verbs can't.

OK, now I'm confused. My understanding is that in Ergative morphosyntax the intransitive agent and transitive patient use the same marker. So...

Intransitive: agent-ERG verb

Transitive: agent-ABS verb patient-ERG

IIRC, a verb's inherent transitivity or lack thereof determines what arguments the verb can have, but not where the case markers themselves go.

There you go.

_________________
そうだ。死んでいる人も勃起することが出来る。
俺はその証だ。

They do, but they are absolutive, not ergative (which is reserved for the agent of transitive clauses), as RS shows in the preceding post.

I get how all this works, but I read on hear (a few pages back) that one cannot have D=P. Well, I thought I read on Wikipedia that Dech langs inherintly are so that D=P. I also use this in my conlang. Here is my conlang's MA:
Class 1 argument: S=A
Class 2 argument: P=D
Class 3 argument: T
I don't see why D cannot= P. Is this just because it is not logically possible, or no known lang does it?
Also, I thought that Fluid-S active langs were basically those that are essentially those that treat a specific class of thematic role as it is always... IE I guess that must mean that to say something in a differnet voice one must reverse syntax... or there really is no voice(?)

_________________
http://sites.google.com/site/sahuho/home

"Dech languages"? Do you mean dechticaetiative languages? If so I think you misread the Wikipedia; if you didn't misread it they made a typo*, because in Dechticaetiative languages, D=A and R=P and T has a third case.

*And since corrected it.

Wikipedia wrote:

A dechticaetiative language is a language in which the indirect objects of ditransitive verbs are treated like the direct objects of monotransitive verbs.

No known natlang has such an alignment.
I think it probably is "logically possible", but it just is not the way people think.
The Agent or Actor in monotransitive clauses, and the Agent or Donor in ditransitive clauses, is usually animate and usually exercises will and acts voluntarily and usually controls and/or performs and/or materially effects and/or instigates the action.
The Patient or Undergoer in monotransitive clauses, and the Theme in ditransitive clauses, need not be animate, need not be voluntarily involved in the action, is usually physically and/or visibly affected (for instance, moved from one place to another, or "moved" from one state to another), usually has no control, or at least has less control than any other participant, and does not perform nor instigate the action, and may not materially effect it. Furthermore, Patients and Themes need not be conscious of anything.
In ditransitive clauses, the Recipient is usually saliently affected, but often less affected than the Theme; usually is involved voluntarily, but passively, or at least usually less actively than the Donor; and must be conscious of being affected.
So, the "natural" alignments of ditransitive-to-monotransitive are
D=A, R=P, T ("dechticatiative alignment");
D=A, R, T=P ("dative alignment"); and
D, R=A, T=P ("pegative alignment").

Any T=A alignment, and also any D=P alignment, is unnaturalistic and unrealistic. Not only is there no known language that has one of them; probably there never was and never will be any natlang that has one of those alignments. Such alignments just "do more violence to the human psyche" than the three alignments I first mentioned (which, among themselves, differ in likelihood).
Nevertheless, if your conlang does have a T=A alignment or a D=P alignment or even "D=P, R, T=A", that could be interesting, so I say "full steam ahead!" to you.


No, I don't think so.
Fluid-S languages are a type of Split-S language.
In a Split-S language, an intransitive verb's Subject might be treated the same as an Agent, or might be treated the same as a Patient.
In a Fluid-S language, there are many examples of pairs of intransitive clauses with the same noun-root for the Subject and the same verb-root for the Verb, but in one it's treated as an Agent and in the other as a Patient. (In other words, given a particular noun-root and a particular intransitive verb, you can construct both an unergative clause (with an Agent-like Subject) and an unaccusative clause (with a Patient-like Subject).)

That would depend on how the language distinguishes the unergative "Agent only" intransitive clauses from the unaccusative "Patient only" intransitive clauses.
It may or may not use Syntax to do so. (In this particular discussion "syntax" probably means "word order", since you haven't talked about any adpositions or other words besides the Subject and the Verb.)
And/or, it may or may not use Voice-marking the Verb to do so. If so, its intransitive verbs do have at least two Voices; an Active or Dynamic Voice if the Subject is Agent-like, and a Stative (or Passive?) Voice if the Subject is Patient-like.
And/or it may or may not use Case-marking the Subject to do so.
As long as there is some way to tell, from listening to an intransitive clause, whether its Subject is being spoken of as if it were its Agent, or instead is being spoken of as if it were its Patient, then the language could be Fluid-S. That could be neither syntax nor voice. Or it could be syntax, but not voice. Or it could be voice, but not syntax. Or it could be both syntax and voice. It depends on the language.

I can't find the quote, but I could understand someone saying this.



AFAICT, you read wrong. I don't see anything on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ditransiti ... _alignment or on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dechticaetiative_language that says anything about D=P.





That's..... interesting. Let me see if I can puzzle this out. You have:

Case 1: subject of intransitive sentences or the agent of monotransitive sentences

Case 2: patient of monotransitive sentences and the donor (essentially the agent) of ditransitive sentences

Case 3: theme (essentially the patient) of ditransitive sentences.


Is this correct in your view? If so, then some examples would be:


The man walked.
man.CASE1 walked.VERB

The man kicked the dog.
man.CASE1 kicked.VERB dog.CASE2

The man gave the girl the dog.
man.CASE2 gave.VERB girl.??? dog.CASE3

-or-

The man gave the dog to the girl.
man.CASE2 gave.VERB dog.CASE3 girl.???


As you can see, the big question is what case is R (the Recipient)?



From the above examples, it looks like it's possible, but the question is, why? What makes a Donor different from an Agent in the culture this conlang is for? In what way is a donor similar to a patient?

It looks roughly like a nom-acc language (from the 1st 2 sentence examples), but then it throws in what feels like a needless complication by treating ditransitive sentences different from monotransitive. I say "needless", because it looks like you're going to have 4 cases if you give the Recipient another case. Donor and Agents are both the ones who are initiating some action, so it makes sense to group them together. Patients and Themes are both having an action directly acted upon them, so why not group them into the same case? Not that you can't separate them, but you should make some effort to explain why. Otherwise, it looks like a whimsical feature placed in just for the sake of being different.

Because of the similarities in roles (A & D, P & T), you would probably want to have some other way to make sure speaker of the lang know what's going on in a given utterance. What role does word order and/or adpositions play? I just think there needs to be some way to quickly understand what the "directionality" of action is.



I think you need to reexamine active-stative langs. I haven't looked into them much, but I feel certain in saying that they most certainly do have voice. Word order is only one way voice might be achieved. Some langs might use word order exclusively, other use it plus some other features (particles, clitics, etc.), and others might not use word order at all for voice.

AFAIK, the main feature of active-stative langs is just that the subject of intransitive sentences will be handled in more than 1 manner. How it gets handled will depend on the particular lang, as each language will have different reasons for treating the intransitive subject differently. That could be animacy, volition, or whatever.

Finally, I would note that AFAICT your language is not active-stative, since you are (apparently) always treating the subject of intransitives the same, which would be the case #1 that I identified above. Because of this, I'm not quite sure why you're asking about active-statives here, unless it's just curiosity and doesn't have any bearing on the MSA you outlined in your post.

Actually, it looks like you have an MSA here that is essentially the opposite of the usual active-stative. There, the intransitive subject changes changes case based on some condition, whereas in your MSA the transitive subject changes case based on a condition, which is whether there is also an indirect object.

Vardelm and TomHchappel, thank you. I was just about to change my language's grammar from the actual Dechcantitive to my weird alignemt. Chose a Dechitcantitive alignment because it seems more "centered" to me: I see R as in the middle of a line while P and T are to the right and D and A are to the left. My lang actually is active... I know this because I regularly have intratansitive clauses that treat the Subject like a patient or a Theme, as well as the use of nominalizing infixes to change meaning: Ie Kah "to swim" becomes activised "Swimmer (IE fish)" but when passivised it becomes "Fishpond".
I thank you both greatly for your support!
PS. I chose Dechticantitive as my conculture in giving sees D as gaining moral wealth while T gains physical wealth and the ability to give back again and thus gain moral wealth.

_________________
http://sites.google.com/site/sahuho/home

Dechticaetiative.



This doesn't necessarily mean that your language is active-stative. For those intransitive clauses, does the subject actually change what case it's using? If so, then yes, it's an active-stative lang. Otherwise, if the case stays the same, then all you have is a different type of verb.

Also, whether or not you have active and/or passive participles has nothing to do with the lang being active-stative.



This is kinda cool. So, morals are so important to this culture (in this case the morals of giving/receiving) that it affects the morphology & syntax of the language. Interesting idea.

Thank you; I am aware of that but I was foolish enough to not put it in my post (This is obviously true as English is Nom-Acc and it has participles. And yes, my conlang's subject takes different cases do to thematic role.

Thank you. I am a horrible speller.
Thank you for the comment. I do belive that culture affects language, but only over mileni(thus radical changes in culture can happen before much change in the lang).

_________________
http://sites.google.com/site/sahuho/home

T is the Theme; the item transferred; the GifT.
If I (Donor) give you (Recipient) a classic automobile (Theme), in what way does the car gain physical wealth? Even if it does, it will never have the ability to give anything back again.
Do you mean that the Recipient "gains physical wealth"?

And, BTW, you are aware, I hope, that not only "give", but also "show" and "tell", are prototypical ditransitive verbs in most languages?

If I show you something, do you directly gain any wealth at all?
If I tell you something, maybe you gain wealth, but is it directly physical?

Bengedian is accusative-dative.
I've also added a quirk: Agents in passive sentences are marked with the genitive case. A passive sentence like Sa ida sas cones bitec "I was bitten by my dog" could literally be translated as "I was my dog's bitten"

_________________
At, casteda dus des ometh coisen at tusta o diédem thum čisbugan. Ai, thiosa če sane búem mos sil, ne?
Also, I broke all your metal ropes and used them to feed the cheeseburgers. Yes, today just keeps getting better, doesn't it?

Or, "I was bitten of my dog". (Genitive means other things as well as just possessive, in many languages that have a genitive.)
Not too weird-sounding that way.

I want to know if a system similar to the one I've chosen for my conlang is attested anywhere, in part or in full. I guess this thread would be the best place to ask. The main clause order is OSV, though not very strictly so, and there are three grammatical cases at work here; Nominative, Absolutive, and Focal.

Intransitive



Monotransitive



Ditransitive

T = R grammatically



To stress "book", a speaker would move it to the beginning of the clause.

----

This system is probably not attested, though it's a bit cool. How can I change it to make it more realistic?

I think it's already realistic/naturalistic, unless I've misunderstood something. I don't know if any natlang actually attests it, but I wouldn't be willing to bet against it.

You may want to check out Yukaghir. There's something similar to this in both Tundra Yukaghir and Kolyma Yukaghir. The Kolyma grammar by Maslova is on google books, and I think the Tundra grammar is easy enough to find in pdf form. I can't remember it off the top of my head, but it seems vaguely similar.