Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 8:14 am
I'm sure there's a better word for it.
See Haspelmath's article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ditransiti ... _alignment and the articles by Croft and by Dryer which Haspelmath refers to.rickardspaghetti wrote:What do you call a language that groups patient, reciever and theme into separate cases each?
So you have S=P, A=D, R, T?rickardspaghetti wrote: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.
I'm pretty sure 'Bill ate' is an intransitive sentence, and thus would use the absolutive case.TaylorS wrote:Eridanian update:
Now Eridanian is Ergative-Dative
bo- = Ergative case, derived from English "by"
Bill ate = boBiu xeyee'
Bill ate breakfast = Biu xeyeedi' bobrafosh
"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.Mbwa wrote:I'm pretty sure 'Bill ate' is an intransitive sentence, and thus would use the absolutive case.TaylorS wrote:Eridanian update:
Now Eridanian is Ergative-Dative
bo- = Ergative case, derived from English "by"
Bill ate = boBiu xeyee'
Bill ate breakfast = Biu xeyeedi' bobrafosh
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.rickardspaghetti wrote: "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.
There you go.TaylorS wrote:
Intransitive: experiencer-ABS verb
Transitive: agent-ERG verb patient-ABS
They do, but they are absolutive, not ergative (which is reserved for the agent of transitive clauses), as RS shows in the preceding post.TaylorS wrote:My understanding is that in Ergative morphosyntax the intransitive agent and transitive patient use the same marker.
"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.abeygail wrote:I thought I read on Wikipedia that Dech langs inherintly are so that D=P.
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.abeygail wrote: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 think it probably is "logically possible", but it just is not the way people think.abeygail wrote:I don't see why D cannot= P. Is this just because it is not logically possible, or no known lang does it?
No, I don't think so.abeygail wrote: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...
That would depend on how the language distinguishes the unergative "Agent only" intransitive clauses from the unaccusative "Patient only" intransitive clauses.abeygail wrote:IE I guess that must mean that to say something in a different voice one must reverse syntax... or there really is no voice(?)
I can't find the quote, but I could understand someone saying this.abeygail wrote:I get how all this works, but I read on hear (a few pages back) that one cannot have D=P.
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.abeygail wrote:Well, I thought I read on Wikipedia that Dech langs inherintly are so that D=P.
That's..... interesting. Let me see if I can puzzle this out. You have:abeygail wrote: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
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?abeygail wrote:I don't see why D cannot= P. Is this just because it is not logically possible, or no known lang does it?
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.abeygail wrote: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(?)
Dechticaetiative.abeygail wrote:Dechcantitive Dechitcantitive Dechticantitive
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.abeygail wrote: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".
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.abeygail wrote: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.
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".
Thank you. I am a horrible speller.Dechcantitive Dechitcantitive Dechticantitive
Dechticaetiative.
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).abeygail wrote:
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.
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.
T is the Theme; the item transferred; the GifT.abeygail wrote:I chose Dechticaetiative 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.
Or, "I was bitten of my dog". (Genitive means other things as well as just possessive, in many languages that have a genitive.)Bedelato wrote: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"
Code: Select all
he eats
S-Nom V
he eats
him eats
S-Foc V
he eats, unwillingly
he/him eats
S-Abs V
he is eaten
Code: Select all
it he eats (the more common order)
P-Foc A-Nom V
he eats *it*
he it eats
A-Foc P-Abs V
*he* eats it
Code: Select all
him I give book
R-Foc A-Nom V T-Foc
I give *him* a book
I him give book
A-Foc R-Abs V T-Abs
*I* give him a book
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.Zoris wrote:This system is probably not attested, though it's a bit cool. How can I change it to make it more realistic?
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.Zoris wrote: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.