Re: Ergativity Reference Done

Andreas wrote:

<<
The case-names I've seen, and used, are simply "transitive case" and
"intransitive case".
>>
I liked coming up with separate case names because
"intransitive" and "transitive" are already used.
I'll note that these have been used, though.

Andreas still:

<<
This pattern is found in some Iranian languages - an archive search for "monster
raving loony" ought yield some info on them, submitted, IIRC, chiefly by the
Lord of the Instrumentality.
>>
I'll look those up.

Andreas also wrote:

<<
There's, of course two further possibilites - "tripartite" languages that have
separate markers for each of S, A and P, and "clairvoyant" languages, that
treat them all the same, using only context to disambiguate A and P. <snip>
>>
Dude, don't I get *some* credit?  Everything you
mentioned in this e-mail is on the site.  And the
"clairvoyant" system you're talking about is, in
fact, cited by Payne in Describing Morphosyntax.
He cites an example where the A and the P are
both proper names, and the only way to know which
is which is context.  I believe the language is
Sierra...something or other.  I can't remember.
It's in the section on inverse systems (or
agent-worthiness), though.

One thing I'd like to ask (since I haven't looked
up the loony thread) is if valency-reduction systems
were every discussed with the loony system.  It's
neither a passive nor an antipassive, it seems,
but something I'm calling an ambipassive.  So let's
say you have this:

Kelina-r sapu.  "The woman-UNI. sleeps."
Kelina lamu palino.  "The woman-DUA. pets the panda-DUA."

Then the ambipassive would be this:

Kelina-r lamuto.  "The woman-UNI. pet-MORPH."

That "MORPH" means "valency-reduction morphology",
and the sentence would be translated as *either*
"The woman is being petted" or "The woman is petting
(something)", depending on context.  Perhaps a
definition that would cover both bases would be
"The woman is a participant in a petting event".

Anyway, I'll check the archives.  This type of a
passive would be inherently different from the other
two in a number of ways, but would, essentially, fulfill
the necessary requirement (i.e., that in conjunction,
for example, the right arguments are conjoined).

Any thoughts?

-David

Reply