Re: LW again -- Noun and verb

Quoting Andreas Johansson <and_yo@...>:

> >From: "Thomas R. Wier" <trwier@...>
> >Quoting Mau Rauszer <maurauser@...>:
> >
> > > Zesefde Thomas R. Wier  <trwier@...> ta 2002.08.27. her
> >13:31:57
> > > -5h:
> > >
> > > > Quoting Mau Rauszer <maurauser@...>:
> > > > > Aspects: Habitual - Continous
> > > >
> > > > These aspects usually pattern together in languages.  A more
> > > > common split is perfective / imperfective.
> > > Yeah but there they are different.
> >
> >How?
>
> I can't fail to notice that you did not point out that distinguishing
> habitual vs continual but not perfective vs imperfective is unusual in your
> otherwise lengthy reply to my initial post on Yargish. Is there anything
> particular in Yargish that makes this state of affairs less surprising?
There is? Somehow I missed that.  But, without looking
at any particular use of Yargish, I'd have to say the
same thing.

> > > > > Voice: Passive: -lu. Used when the action happens to the subject.
> > > >
> > > > Is there an antipassive? How about an instrumental-focuser?
> > >
> > > Antipassive? It's probably just the unsigned "normal" form.
> >
> >That is not what the term <antipassive> is usually taken to
> >mean (though of course you can label your feature that, if you
> >so desire).  An antipassive is a valence-changing operation on
> >a transitive verb that, like the passive, makes it an intransitive
> >verb.  Unlike the passive, which demotes the agent and promotes
> >the patient to subject, the antipassive does the reverse, demoting
> >the patient to an optional peripheral phrase and keeping the agent
> >as the subject.
>
> You asked about antipassives in Yargish too. I'm afraid I'm not yet
> entirely clear on the idea - could you give a natlang example?
Here're the criteria that Dixon cites in distinguishing
passive from antipassive (_Ergativity_, p. 146):

==========================================================
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;
(4) there is some explicit formal marking of a passive
construction (generally by a verb affix or else by a
periphrastic element in the verb phrase -- such as English
_be... -en_ -- although it could be marked elsewhere in the
clause)

Antipassive:
(1) applies to an underlying transitive clause and forms a
 derived intransitive;
(2) the underlying A NP become S of the intransitive;
(3) the underlying O 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;
(4) there is some explicit formal marking of an antipassive
construction (same preference and possibilities as for
passive).
=========================================================

Dixon doesn't give many examples;  here's one from Quiché:

sh-0-kuna-sh              ri: achih r-umal ri: ishoq
COMPL-3SgS-cure-INCH.PASS the man   3Sg-by the woman
"The man was cured by the woman"

xachin sh-0-kuna-n              che:    ri: achih
who    COMPL-3SgS-cure-ANTIPASS for+him the man
"Who cured (for) the man?"

In Phaleran, the antipassive works somewhat differently.  Formally,
both the antipassive and passive were originally marked by just
the same suffix, -bro-, which detransitivized the verb and took
on antipassive or passive meaning according to verb class.  Later,
as this system began to break down, a determiner that originally
agreed with the patient was grammaticalized into the verb matrix,
which differentiated the two formally as well as categorially.
This can be exemplified by a word that you see often in my
posts, _slabronten_, which is the antipassive form of "write".
_laswa_ is a transitive verb, but when the voice changes, the
transitivity marker is dropped and replaced by the detransitive
marker: _labro-_.  Then, when personal endings and evidentiality
are added, this can be taken as is, to create _labronten_ 'it was
written', or with the antipassive s- affix, _slabronten_.  The
antipassive is chosen for replying to posts to the list, because
discourse-functionally the salient fact is who wrote the post,
the agent, not the content of the post.

 =========================================================================
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