2,334
edits
Kirtumur nouns: Difference between revisions
m
→Ergative
(→Case) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
m (→Ergative) |
||
| Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
The dual of or plural markers are used with the noun they modify, although this particular example is from an old text. In modern colloquial language the word "gods" would be ''entirik'' instead, the second animate dative marker would be dropped too. | The dual of or plural markers are used with the noun they modify, although this particular example is from an old text. In modern colloquial language the word "gods" would be ''entirik'' instead, the second animate dative marker would be dropped too. | ||
====Ergative==== | ====Ergative==== | ||
The ergative case is expressed with the enclitic case marker ''-es'' (animate) or ''-em'' (inanimate). A noun phrase in the ergative case expresses the agent of a transitive clause and in some cases the intransitive subject, when a clause is [[w:Volition (linguistics)|volitional]]. Here is an example of such a volitional contrast in an intranstive sentence: ''nō izilzil'' "a stone (absolutive case) rolls by itself" vs ''imem nimizile muitrau'' "a cloud (ergative case) rolls itself into a spiral shape". Volition is always expressed in Erepursal, but in Umunesal absolutive case would be preferred in both cases even though both options are acceptable. For semantic reasons, the ergative case is primarily found with human noun phrases, but it can be used with inanimate noun phrases as well. The | The ergative case is expressed with the enclitic case marker ''-es'' (animate) or ''-em'' (inanimate). A noun phrase in the ergative case expresses the agent of a transitive clause and in some cases the intransitive subject, when a clause is [[w:Volition (linguistics)|volitional]]. Here is an example of such a volitional contrast in an intranstive sentence: ''nō izilzil'' "a stone (absolutive case) rolls by itself" vs ''imem nimizile muitrau'' "a cloud (ergative case) rolls itself into a spiral shape". Volition is always expressed in Erepursal, but in Umunesal absolutive case would be preferred in both cases even though both options are acceptable. For semantic reasons, the ergative case is primarily found with human noun phrases, but it can be used with inanimate noun phrases as well. The example below demonstrates the usage of the ergative case. The word ''Ŋaškiles'' is a proper noun (name) and displays the ergative case marker: | ||
:{| | :{| | ||
|Ŋaškiles | |Ŋaškiles | ||
| Line 75: | Line 75: | ||
| colspan="2" | "when Ngashkil had called his name". | | colspan="2" | "when Ngashkil had called his name". | ||
|} | |} | ||
====Absolutive==== | ====Absolutive==== | ||
The absolutive case is marked by ''-i'' (animate, not possessed) or by the absence of any case marker (inanimate). A noun phrase which lacks a case marker will be said to be in the absolutive case. In transitive clauses such a phrase usually expresses the direct object and in intransitive clauses the subject; it can also denote indirect objects with the meaning of motion, manner or purpose. Finally, in Umunesal the absolutive case is the form used when addressing somebody, while Erepursal has a special vocative clitic for this purpose. | The absolutive case is marked by ''-i'' (animate, not possessed) or by the absence of any case marker (inanimate). A noun phrase which lacks a case marker will be said to be in the absolutive case. In transitive clauses such a phrase usually expresses the direct object and in intransitive clauses the subject; it can also denote indirect objects with the meaning of motion, manner or purpose. Finally, in Umunesal the absolutive case is the form used when addressing somebody, while Erepursal has a special vocative clitic for this purpose. | ||