eldin raigmore wrote:
In your "Glossing" section, you have ACT for "Active case" and STAT for "Stative case".I use the word stative and active for the cases of the agentive subject and the unagentive subject or object of a verb because Siwa has a fluid-s alignment. It's in contrast to the nom-acc and erg-abs systems.
"Active" and "Stative" usually apply to verbs, not to nouns and pronouns; they're usually voices instead of cases.
You have them applying to nouns and pronouns, though. Why?
That's not how it's usually done in talking about cases in Split-S or Fluid-S aligned languages.
The class of Active/Stative languages are so named for the voices of their intransitive verbs, not for the cases of their nouns.
The case for an Agent (like the subject of an Active intransitive verb), is typically called "Ergative"; the case for a Patient (and also the subject of a Stative intransitive verb), is typically called "Accusative".
"Nominative" and "Absolutive" are terms usually reserved for a case whose case-marking morpheme is a zero morpheme. That is, the case-ending marking a noun as NOM
is "there is no case-ending". If your Agents (including the subjects of your Active intransitive verbs) happen to be "case-marked" by not having a case-marker, you could reasonably call that case "nominative" instead of "ergative"; OTOH if your Patients (and the subjects of your Stative intransitive verbs) happen to be "case-marked" by not having a case-marker, you could reasonably call that case "absolutive" instead of "accusative".
"Active" might, FAIK and IMO, be a reasonable (though unusual) name for the case that Agents go in; but IMO I don't think "Stative" is a reasonable name for any case.
Nevertheless, it's more important to describe what your conlang actually does, than to use the "correct" terminology to do so.