From: Paul Bennett <Paul.Bennett@...>
> >>>>>>
> > The grammar is a mixed ergative-absolute / dechticaetative system.
>
> What the heck is "dechticaetative"?
> <<<<<<
> A system that distinguishes Primary from Secondary Objects, rather than
Direct
> from Indirect Objects. The opposite of "dechticaetative" (according to
Trask)
> is "dative". I've tried to maintain more familiar terminology throughout
the
> rest of the post to make it easier to read.
Yes, that's it, although I had heard them referred to as principal and
subsidiary objects.
> >>>>>>
> > Transitive Verb
> > Subject - Ergative
> > Verb - Inflected for Subject
> > Object - Absolute
> >
> > Ditransitive Verb
> > Subject - Volitive
> > Indirect Object - Ergative
> > Verb - Inflected for Indirect Object
> > Direct Object - Absolute
>
> Hmm, same case for agent of a transitive sentence AND dative? Very
> strange.
> <<<<<<
> In "the man fills the bucket with water", they see "the water" as
performing the
> action of "filling the bucket", under the control of "the man". This is
one
> essence of the word dechticaetative.
Really? "the man fills the bucket with water" is not strictly speaking
ditransitive since "water" is an oblique rather than a core argument of the
predicate ("the man fills the bucket" is quite grammatical.) A more
canonical example of a ditransitive would be something like "the man gave me
the bucket" where "*the man gave me." is illformed requiring the third
argument. It has been sometime since I came across the dechticaetiative
concept, but my understanding of the principal/subsidiary (or
primary/secondary) object distinction is that he former includes both
transitive direct orjects and ditransitive indirect objects while the latter
includes ditransitive direct objects. My Trask is around here someplace.
I'll have to check. In any case, I would expect a dechticaetiative system
to use the same case for both instances of principal/primary and a different
case for subsidiary/secondary). That doesn't seem to be the case with your
language.
> >>>>>>
> > Plurals are marked by umlaut.
>
> Cool.
> <<<<<<
> I think the actual term may be ablaut, now I come to re-read it.
Basically, one
> of more vowels in a noun changes to a similar vowel to mark the plural.
Actually I've seen both terms used for this kind of inflection. anyone know
what the distinction really is between umlaut and ablaut?
David