(Well, really you have suppletive roots. But if you choose the sound change right, it can look like something is added to the nominative— e.g. if the sound change is that a final consonant is lost.) That's indeed a cool way to do that, though you'd probably need a limited set of word-final sounds o...
Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2024 6:24 amI normally do this.
I do this fcr a small set of verbs such as ta[/t] (the equational copula) and [i[ga (the existential copula).
Of course, I use ergative and accusative in non-standard fashions to refer to marked arguments of intransitive verbs in a fluid-S arrangement along with antipassive and passive verbs, where agentive S is direct for animates and ergative for inanimates and patientive S is accusative for animates and...
Travis B. wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2024 10:54 amI am surprised that it needed explanation that that was the Seven Kill Stele.
Mi in noredi bwes bo "sewn kil flat-ston", sapway o non. Olso im sim kantafit.
I wasn't familiar yet with the "seven kill stele", surprised or not. Also it seems it's fake.
If you define it as ‘verb + object’, you’re forced to conclude that VSO languages don’t have predicates — and therefore their clauses don’t have any head at all! ‘Head’ may be an ill-defined term, but to me, that’s going a bit too far. Not at all, that's a strawman. What you'd conclude is that you ...
What? VSO is equally as head-initial as VOS, just that the object in VSO is decoupled from the verb. You are correct here. VSO and VOS are equally ‘head-initial’. I disagree, though I may well be in disagreement with current linguistic theory. In my opinion, verb + object = predicate, and a predica...
The verb is the head of the phrase, not the subject. So, VSO or VOS word order. Yes, but the object is closer to the verb than the subject, so VOS makes it more head-initial than VSO. "Eating a peach" vs. "(Eating a peach) by me" (where "by" is the ergative). It's not ...
almost rigidly head-initial ... animate nouns are placed before inanimate nouns, even if the animate noun is the syntactic object. That kinda contradict each other :D. eat\REAL-3sg Sam-NOM orange-ABS (VSO) fall_on\REAL-3sg mouse-ACC pillar-ERG (VOS) I have some difficulty with an animate-inanimate ...
I must emphasize that if there is to be any temporal references, it is between future and non-future, not past and non-past. Sure, but your counterfactual seems decidedly +past. The realis can be marked in the apodosis, for matters involving implication (there are hoofprints here, so there must be ...
The irrealis is typically future-orientated while the counterfactual is nonfuture -orientated. So the distinction in the protasis makes sense. Yet, they (at least the irrealis) don't have to refer to time at all. Or, rather, the irrealis is far less tied to temporality than the counterfactual. So i...
Well yes, but I could just as much mark it in the irrealis mood since the irrealis deals with unrealized or nonactual events. So what for you is the difference between "counterfactual" and "unrealized/nonactual"? Seems to me that semantically these are very close, if not the sam...
So that is why I don't know whether the condition clause is supposed to be marked counterfactual or if it's the consequence clause, or both. I don't know the psycholinguostics or formal logic or semantic theories or whatever is involved. "Condition clause" and "consequence clause&quo...