Objects and Cases (was Re: Tense and Aspect)
Saul Epstein 
Tue, 9 Dec 1997 18:45:54 -0600

From: Rob Zook <rzook*informix,com>
Date: Tuesday, December 9, 1997 4:09 PM
 
> At 01:07 PM 12/9/97 -0600, Saul wrote:
> 
> >What is amusing, and for which the professor deserves additional 
> >respect, is that mixed systems are entirely natural.
> 
> Well, I know for formal mode I personally would prefer a more
exacting 
> tense system. However, retaining some elements which would occur in
> a natural language seems perfectly alright. In fact, that fails in
line
> with my idea that the language would get re-constructed after the
> reformation, thus having characteristics of both natural and
constructed
> languages.

Very true. That will give us, just as it gave the Vulcans, the
opportunity to experiment with an idealized system (Formal Mode),
while helping to ensure the language's naturalness.

> >>We do have one comparitive grammer structure: equals. I tried to
use the
> >>"distort" and "pleasure" as descriptions to use the X Y
comparative order
> >>grammer. X Y means X = Y.
> >
> >It may be more accurate to say "X Y" means "X relates to Y," with
the
> >relationship depending somehow on context. Because it can also
mean "Y of
> >X."
> 
> Well, the only two examples of this I saw in the Lexicon were:
> 
>               Equotional sentences are expressed by simple
juxtaposition 
>               in a certain syntactic order: X Y , where X= old
>  information, Y = new information.
> 
>               Thus 'Spock is tall' is literally 'Spock tall' and
'Spock 
>               is commander' is 'Spock (X) - commander (Y).

Ah, yes. I had forgotten about those. Unfortunately, they directly
contradict

	2) Vulcan is a dD language; ... mean[ing]..,that which determines
	[precedes] that which is determined. ([i,e.] Attribute-Head). Hence
	"Spock's partner's blood" is in Vulcan either 
	a) Spock'at t'hyla'at plak (with two gen[i]tive suffi[x]es 'at) or
	b) Spoc[k] t'hyla'at plak, with a zero morph for the gen[i]tive
relation
		because of the dD principle.

from the "More on Vulcan" addendum, which implies that "spok t'haila"
means friend of Spock or, as English might have said long ago
"Spockfriend." The second word is the thing spoken of, while the
first word identifies that thing more specifically. This would, by
extension, imply that one could speak of "TallSpock" and
"CommanderSpock," but that "SpockTall" would evoke Spock's height and
"SpockCommander" his command style. "How tall was he?" "Oh, easily
spocktall."

Now, obviously the point can be made that the one structure
represents a whole clause while the other is merely a compound noun.
But in the context of a complex sentence, how can one possibly tell
the difference?

The most ready and least disruptive solution I can see is to attach
the two parts of compounds to each other and treat them as one word.
Only the second would be inflected, and the "facing" boundaries of
the two words could exert phonological influence on each other. Thus,
in most cases a compound of two words would sound different than a
sequence of the same two words, allowing the audience to interpret a
statement properly.

> >Giving examples of cases in English is difficult because our
inflexion is
> >severely deteriorated. It's most obvious with pronouns though:
> <snip>
> 
> I think I see what you're getting at.
> 
> >But do you see that, by not marking "cta'e," your sentence begins
with 
> >the speaker ordering some second person's facts to find something,

> >without ever saying what?
> 
> Well, I did not at first because I thought that V+S+O meant simply
> word order.

"More on Vulcan" also describes Vulcan as a VOS language...

> If I rearrainged what I said: va'numkaa s'at cta'e, to
> cta'e s'at va'numkaa it still looks like "facts yours find", in
> which the verb subject and object all still the same.

Let's see... In the first clause of the quote, here are the pieces.

(Subject[you]) Verb[find] Object[you-GEN facts]

There is no stated subject; it is understood to be a second-person
pronoun. Everything else in the clause, except the verb, is the
direct object of the verb -- that which is to be found. In Standard
English, the only indication of status as direct object is position
somewhere after the verb. (So you can't really, for instance, say
"Your facts find," because your audience is left asking "Find what?"
"Facts yours find," is pretty much beyond standard interpretation:
the noun in the genitive must immediately precede the possessed term,
with all its adjectives and adverbs.)

In Vulcan, word order doesn't convey this information. A term is a
direct object if it is properly marked as standing in the accusative
with the suffix -hi. Without being marked for some case or
participating in a compound, an entity stands in the nominative, the
case of the subject.

A more lucid example might be

	ow'va'penum kro'elhi surak

	he-sought   way-ACC  Surak[-NOM]

meaning "Surak sought [the] way." Without the case marking on "way"

	ow'va'penum kro'el  surak

	he-sought   way[-?] surak[-NOM]

you have "Surak of the way sought," or "The way, which is Surak,
sought" (depending on what gets done with that "X Y" business)
without specifying what was sought.

--
from Saul Epstein
liberty*uit,net
www,johnco,cc,ks,us/~sepstein
"Surak ow'phaaper thes'hi thes'tca'; thes'phaadjar thes'hi
suraketca'."
							-- K'dvarin Urswhl'at