Re: LW again -- Noun and verb
| From: | Christophe Grandsire <christophe.grandsire@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Thursday, August 29, 2002, 7:29 |
|---|
En réponse à "Thomas R. Wier" <trwier@...>:
>
> ==========================================================
> Passive:
> (1) applies to an underlying transitive clause and forms a
> derived intransitive;
> (2) the underlying O NP become S of the intransitive;
> (3) the underlying A-NP goes into a peripheral function,
> being marked by a noncore case, prepositionm etc.; this
> NP can be omitted although there is always the option of
> including it;
Are you sure about the "always"? I've read about Hebbrew (I don't remember if
it was Modern Hebbrew or not) that it had two possible passive forms for
transitive verbs, one for which the demoted agent could still be expressed
obliquely, another where this was ungrammatical and the agent couldn't be
expressed at all. Would such a construction be denied the name of passive (when
it has the meaning of a passive) just because it cannot express the demoted
agent?
In my booklet on the structure of languages (where this example comes from),
the definition of passive doesn't require that the agent must be able to be
expressed obliquely. Indeed, it even says that in some languages the only
possible passive form doesn't allow it.
Christophe.
http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr
Take your life as a movie: do not let anybody else play the leading role.
Replies