Re: R: Re: preferred voices?
|Date:||Tuesday, September 26, 2000, 13:37|
David Bell wrote:
> > From: Mangiat
> > > > The only explanation I've ever
> > > >gotten is that it's not as powerful as active but I don't really buy
> > > >that.
> > >
> > > That doesn't really make much sense to me. What is "powerful"
> > supposed to
> > > mean?
> > I find the passive voice powerful as the active. Ergative langs
> > use passive
> > much more than active (okay, okay, that's not exactly the same thing!).
> Actually, I don' think that is the case. Many (most?) ergative languages
> don't even have a passive.
Well, I meant that if we consider a passive verb a verb which agrees with
the patient, in an ergative lang we'd have:
me.ERG love.3s girl.ABS
From a western's perfective, influenced by accusative langs (BUT this's not
the case, and that's why I said it wasn't the same), the verb concording
with the patient would generally mean passive.
> You may be referring to the antipassive, which
> for ergative languages serves an analogous function as the passive doesfor
> accusative languages. However, although the antipassive may be used morein
> ergative languages than the passive is in accusative ones, I am not at all
> certain that it is used more than the active and rather suspect that thisis
> not the case. I'll check my sources.