Return-Path: Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0tJr0y-0000ZUC; Mon, 27 Nov 95 02:01 EET Message-Id: Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 61F39E88 ; Mon, 27 Nov 1995 1:01:44 +0100 Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 18:58:45 -0500 Reply-To: Jorge Llambias Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: FA-atives X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu, jorge@minerva.phyast.pitt.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 880 Lines: 22 Chris: > Maybe the fa-ative > tends to be nominative and the feative is accusative, The feative is often the material (I know there is a name for that one) or the possesive, too. Also it is the speciesive for living things. > but by the time you're > at the 3rd or 4th place the meaning is completely context-dependent. The fiative is often the dative, when it makes sense to have one. > Hmm.. it would be interesting to pretend the FA's were proper cases, and do > a study of the gi'uste to see what the fo-places have in common -- a likely > bizarre and lojbanic way of classifying the world. :-) It's impossible. Even if you look only at classes of words at a time, there usually are arbitrary exceptions. For example, one would expect that all animals would follow the pattern "x1 is a *** of species x2", but there are at least two exceptions: tigers and sheep. Jorge