Re: LW again -- Noun and verb

Quoting Christophe Grandsire <christophe.grandsire@...>:

> 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 should probably point out that Dixon calls these "fairly strict"
criteria.  He goes on to say: "The label 'agentless passive' has
sometimes been used for a construction where underlying O becomes
S, and A is simply omitted, with there being no formal marking, i.e.,
(a) and (b) [above] but not (c) and (d). Similarly, 'patientless
antipassive' could refer to A becoming S and O being omitted with
no formal marking - again, (a) and (b) but not (c) and (d).  Now
I have mentioned that in accusative languages the S or A (nominative)
NP is generally obligatory, but that the O NP may be omittable in
certain circumstances, e.g. English _He is drinking whisky_ -->
_He is drinking_.  This might be taken as an instance of 'patientless
antipassive'. I also mentioned that in an ergative language the S
or O (absolutive) NP is generally obligatory but that an A NP may
be omitted in certain circumstances (this is always possible in
Dyirbal, for instance). This might -- under some analyses -- be
taken as an example of an 'agentless passive'.  In fact, passives
are typically found accusative and antipassives in ergative languages.
To introduce a further category of 'patientless antipassives'
(found typically in accusative languages) and 'agentless passives'
(found typically in ergative languages) would be unhelpful and
confusing. I suggest that criterion (d) should always be maintained,
so that an agentless passive only be recognized when there is some
explicit formal marking.... [s]imilarly, a patientless antipassive
should also satisfy criteria (a), (b) and (d) with some formal
marking." (_Ergativity_, p. 147).

So the question would appear to be:  is this Hebrew construction
which forbids an agent formally marked?  I'd like to see some
examples, if possible.

 =========================================================================
Thomas Wier
Dept. of Linguistics  "Nihil magis praestandum est quam ne pecorum ritu
University of Chicago sequamur antecedentium gregem, pergentes non qua
1010 E. 59th Street   eundum est, sed qua itur." -- Seneca
Chicago, IL 60637

Reply