Hi!
Patrick Littell <puchitao@...> writes:
> Wow, I like this a lot. I don't think ANAD at all! At least, not
> where the tense is *deduced* from the case in such a way!
I also like it.
Patrick: you should give the name of the original poster ('twas Edward).
> Here's my thoughts on possible streamlinings:
>...
>
> Tense S A P
> Past p n p
> Present n a p
> Future a a n
This looks very nice, yes. :-)
Let me see, the original was:
> Tense System S A P
> Past Erg X Y X
> Present Tri Y X Z
> Future Nom Z Z Y
This is also nice, because any of S, A and P get get assigned X, Y and
Z. :-) Very obfuscated -- I think I like this more.
> Hmm, what else. Given the split-ergative system, I'd also lose the
> verb-medial order and go with verb-initial or verb-final.
Why?
> If you're looking at case-suffixes, I'd say go with verb-final order
> and let the speaker order the nominals as they please. Or... maybe
> require an order in which the tense can be deduced from the first
> word.
HAHA! :-)
>...
> Say that you have the following personal prefixes:
>
> Case p = 1st: mu-, 2nd: yu-, 3rd hu-
> Case n = 1st: ma-, 2nd: ya-, 3rd ha-
> Case a = 1st: mi-, 2nd: yi-, 3rd hi-
>
> As soon as the sentence begins, you can deduce the
> transitivity/intransitivity of the verb, the participants, *and* the
> tense.
This is funny! :-)
**Henrik