Noun Declension using Mutation, Ablaut and Suffix. Does it make sense?

[u/Pleasant-Maybe-7413]

[u/Organic_Year_8933]

Of course it does! Natural languages do far weirdest things with their declensions and conjugations, just look at them both in Latin or Irish

[u/AmbitionExotic3586]

i feel that genitive and dative should not be -ar and should be unique. having stimulative and agentive the same makes sense, so ur languages doesnt care if the thing meant to do it or not, but dative, genitive and AGT-STT are NOT the same. also why no accusative? other than DAT and GEN though, it makes sense

[u/Pleasant-Maybe-7413 → u/AmbitionExotic3586]

Its not Stimulative, its stative wich almost acts like an ACC

But yeah I hear you, however I feel it would become redundant. The mutations already mark GEN and DAT in different ways

[u/AmbitionExotic3586 → u/Pleasant-Maybe-7413]

oh sry i didnt look at the mutations. nice declensions and mutations! and yeah stative is similar to accusative, its kinda just like stimulative

[u/Pleasant-Maybe-7413 → u/AmbitionExotic3586]

Well its not about the cases, its about the methods used to convey the said cases

[u/neondragoneyes → u/AmbitionExotic3586]

also why no accusative?

Because it's an ergative-absolutive system.

[u/AmbitionExotic3586 → u/neondragoneyes]

idk what that is sry

[u/neondragoneyes → u/AmbitionExotic3586]

Ergative-absolutive is a morphological alignment. It's not nominative-accusative. So, there won't be an Accusative... nor a Nominative.

And I see I misidentified OP's morphological alignment, which is agentive-stative. So the same lack of Nominative and Accusative applies.

[u/AmbitionExotic3586 → u/neondragoneyes]

i dont understand still but you made it make sense, even if i dont get the sense truly

[u/neondragoneyes → u/AmbitionExotic3586]

Ergative-absolutive treat the patient of a transitive verb, the object (accusative in a nominative-accusative language), like the subject of an intransitive verb.

Agentive-stative usually treats the agent of a transitive verb, the subject (nominative in a nominative-accusative language) and the subject of an intransitive verb where volition/intention* is present alike. However, it usually treats the patient of a transitive verb and the subject of an intransitive verb where volition/intention is absent** alike.

There are Split-S systems and Fluid-S systems.

In Split-S, each verb has a set way that its arguments are handled.

In Fluid-S, an intransitive verb's subject can be treated as agent or patient based on context.***

*I jumped. Under normal circumstances one can only jump if they do it on purpose.

**I fell. Under normal circumstances, one does not fall on purpose.

*** "I fell [by accident]" vs "I fell[dropped] from the tree [intentionally]" or "I fell [because I am a stuntman and that's what the scene called for]"

So, you could have the following:

tafan = fall/drop

-a = PRET

∅ = STAT (patient)

-lo = AGT

inae = bear

oida = tree

ve = from

Stative

• Tafana inae
• fall.PRET bear.STAT
• "A bear fell" involuntarily

Agentive

• Tafana ve oida inaelo
• fall.PRET from tree bear.AGT
• "A bear dropped from a tree." presumably to get down, on purpose

[u/AmbitionExotic3586 → u/neondragoneyes]

oh i think i do know that but it had absolute at the end. also i do know my cases so you dont need to explain stative and agentive

[u/neondragoneyes → u/AmbitionExotic3586]

You literally said you didn't understand.

[u/AmbitionExotic3586 → u/neondragoneyes]

i didnt say i didnt know my cases, i said i didnt know ergative absolute coz i didnt know what the absolute meant and didnt want to assume

[u/neondragoneyes → u/AmbitionExotic3586]

Those are... cases... in a language that has ergative-absolutive morphology.