Re: Translation pattern of `to have'?

Joerg wrote:

>Henrik Theiling <theiling@...> writes:
>
> > Hi!
> >
> > Considering various possibilities in my new conlang, the lack of case
> > marking, etc., and the verbs that already exist in my language, I
> > decided to use the locative verb:
> >
> >    book be-at I.
> >    AGT        PAT
>
>The verb "to be at" is as stative as any verb can be, it is the
>prototypically stative verb, so I don't see why the subject is marked as
>AGT.  If you intend your language to have active alignment, it should
>mark its subject as PAT, and the possessor with an oblique case,
>probably dative or locative:
>
>    book be.at me.
>    PAT        DAT/LOC
Yes and no. That is, both approaches are valid. Which one Henrik wants to
use (his original idea or yours) depends on how he structures his language.
If what he glosses as "be-at" ends up being a transitive  verb that cannot
be formed by productive means (eg, no or severely reduced applicatives),
then assigning "book" to AGT and "I" to PAT is not wrong. It is not unheard
of for a verb to assign AGT to any subject of a 2-argument verb regardless
of the event semantics. For example, you can have a verb with a stative
meaning, that has AGT subject, and a reflexive object. As Daniel Andreasson
has pointed out to me, these are usually (he might say "always";)) a case a
lexicalization. This is one way a language could have the pattern Henrik
proposes.

You're approach is the more typical and expected situation.


Marcus Smith

"Sit down before fact as a little child,
be prepared to give up every preconceived notion,
follow humbly wherever and to whatsoever abysses Nature leads,
or you shall learn nothing."
                -- Thomas Huxley

Reply