Re: Underspecified verbs?

Jesse Bangs wrote:

>           Intent.    Cause.    Part.
> Actor       +          +        +
> Agent       -          +        +
> Participant -          -        +
> Origin      -          +        -
> Causant     +          +        -
> Object      -          -        -
               [...]

> Etc, etc.  Does this seem plausible?  Are there any natlangs
> with a similar system?  Other comments?
Very nice system! I looks like an active system, but with the
semantics generalized to all the arguments, and not just
intransitive verbs. Like Tokana, and my own Rinya, even though
Rinya is drifting towards a more commonly (natlangwise) found
active system. There are natlangs which use semantic marking
for both transitive verbs and intransitive verbs too.

As for case marking rather than verb-agreement, there was
quite a discussion about that some months ago. My personal
opinion is that there is nothing that says you cannot use
case [look at Georgian, Ts'ova-Tush, Guaraní and Acehnese
for examples]. Though some would say that it isn't an active
system anymore then.

Myself, I've found the below system quite useful when it comes
to analyzing the semantics of active alignment. This system
is reminiscent of your system, but your system is much broader
and generalized. You have what Dixon would call a fluid-S
system. I'd call it a Very Fluid-ASP system. :) Come to think
of it, this is misleading since it's the verb that is fluid,
changing its meaning, not really the S, even though it is
the S (or A or P in your case) which change its form.

[+event] means that the predicate describes an event as opposed
to a state. [+P/E/I] means that the predicate is performed, effected
or instigated in some way (but not necessarily controlled) and
[+control] means that the predicate is controlled. Compare "hiccup"
and "run" to see the difference between P/I/E and CONTROL.

PARAMETER   EXAMPLE VERBS                 MARKING

+ event
+ P/E/I     run, jump, go                   AGT
+ control

+ event
+ P/E/I     hiccup, vomit, sneeze           PAT
- control

+ event
- P/E/I     fall, die, slip                 PAT
- control

- event
+ P/E/I     reside, be careful              AGT
+ control

- event
- P/E/I     be tall, be sick, be tired      PAT
- control

This system thus marks controllers as Agent and everyone else
as Patient. Then you can change the "hiccup" class to AGT and
you have a system where controllers and PIE's are marked as
AGT. Then if you mark only [+event] as AGT, you have a system
where the difference is one of evente vs. state.

And then you can introduce new parameters such as "significant
affectedness" and "empathy" [as in Eastern Pomo :) ]. Then a
participant can only be marked as Patient if it is significantly
affected or the speaker chooses to express empathy with what
is talked about. Frex. "The boy:PAT fell" vs. "The boy:AGT fell"
where the first would mean "oh no, poor boy" and the second is
"he fell, but what do I care, it's not my child."

Anyway... I suppose all this falls under the category "other
comments" :)

I haven't seen a natlang doing it exactly as you have but that
doesn't mean it's implausible. I find it both plausible and very
elegant. Very good work!

||| daniel

--
<> Qheil rynenya alanda! <> daniel.andreasson@telia.com <>
<>           Rinya lawa! <> www.geocities.com/conlangus <>

Reply