Re: C'ali update: Split-S cross-referencing, agentive pivot

"Thomas R. Wier" <trwier@...> writes:

> [...]  Because C'ali is a split-S
> language, its class of intransitive verbs is subdivided into
> two classes which take the agent and patient markers,
> respectively, to refer to their single NP.
How much is that tied to the semantics of the verb?
In Q (my conlang family - no connection to the ST:TNG character),
active verbs take agent markers, while stative verbs take patient markers.
Is it the same in C'ali?

> [...]  Speakers have no choice about the selection
> of paradigms for these verbs;  they simply subcategorize
> for patientive or agentive affixes.
In Q, there are some "fluid" verbs, such as 'to come', which can
take agentive or patientive affixes; however, the choice is not free,
but depends on the agentivity of the subject.  In the following
sentences

(1) My brother arrived yesterday.
(2) Your letter arrived yesterday.

the verb 'arrived' would take agent marker in (1), but patient marker
in (2) (and 'my brother' and 'your letter' would be marked accordingly
with agentive and objective cases).

Q also has verbs of perception and emotion that take dative subjects.

>       The interesting fact
> about C'ali syntax is that this sensitivity to agentivity
> is deeply embedded, as we will now see.
So it is in Q: see below.

> AGENTIVE PIVOT
>
> A syntactic pivot is a relation of form (such as agentive
> subjects of transitive and intransitive) that is coreferntial
> with an another relation (such patientive subjects of transitive
> and intransitive verbs) and involved in syntactic rules for
> coordination, complementation, relativization, etc.  In the
> following English sentence, the relation of transitive and
> intransitive NP-s are the pivot (namely, the subject):
>
>   (4) The man saw the animal and [X=the man] ran off.
>   (5) *The man saw the animal and [X=the animal] ran off.
>
> In both (4) and (5), the argument of the second verb has been
> elided.  (5) is ungrammatical because it violates the pivot
> that licenses the elision of X as the transitive subject.
> We may construct sentences in C'ali which must be licensed by
> a differnt kind of pivot:  the interpretation only holds if the
> verbs share in common some agentive or patientive marking:
>
> (6)
> t|-anat-essa=luN      olma-qa    som t|e-qwöl-essa-xela
> thither-run-AGT.II=DP woman-AGT1 and thi.-shoot.at-3SgA.II-3SgP.III
>
> [x= woman] æntwes-si
>             small.game-PAT4
>
> "The woman ran off long ago and shot at the small game"
>
> Now compare with a patientive intransitive verb, where it makes
> the construction ungrammatical:
>
> (7)
> * ?os-këi=luN   olma-s     som t|e-qwöl-essa-xela
>    die-PAT.II=DP woman-PAT1 and thi.-shoot.at-3SgA.II-3SgP.III
>
>    [x= woman] æntwes-si
>               small.game-PAT4
>    *"The woman died and [she] shot at the small game."
>
> (8)
>    ?os-këi=luN   olma-s     som t|e-qwöl-aN-këi
>    die-PAT.II=DP woman-PAT1 and thi.-shoot.at-3SgA.I-3SgP.II
>
>    saxmë-thei   [x= woman]
>    man-AGT3
>    "The woman died and the man shot at [her]."
>
> Here, the woman is a patient and only argument of the first verb,
> while the patient of the second is the small game. Because the
> woman in the second clause is an agent, there can be no elision:
> the change to agentivity must be explicitly expressed. In (8),
> the argument for "woman" may be elided because it shares the same
> role, patient, and is coreferential with the same word in the
> preceding clause.
Same as in Q.

>       To show that this is truly Split-S agentive
> pivot, you also need to show that two intransitive verbs of
> differing categories, one patientive and one agentive, may not
> allow such elision; this is the case, as in (9):
>
> (9) *t|-anat-essa          olma-qa    som  ?os-këi        [X]
>     thither-run-AGT.II=DP woman-AGT1 and  die-3SgPAT.II
>     *"The woman ran off amd [she] died"
>
> Instead, you must explicitly mention again the coreferential
> argument:
>
> (10) t|-anat-essa          olma-qa    som  ?os-këi       olma-s
>      thither-run-AGT.II=DP woman-AGT1 and  die-3SgPAT.II woman-PAT1
>      "The woman ran off and [she] died"
>
> I plan to work on voice-operations, such as antipassivization
> and passivization, which would get around this problem. Any questions,
> comments or criticisms?
In my Q languages, the sentences (7) and (9) would likewise be ungrammatical,
for the very same reasons.  I have not yet settled on the solution I will choose
for Q, but I am considering something similar to what Daniel suggested,
that is a "switch reference" marker, either as an affix to the verb,
or (more likely) a free-standing pronoun.

Passives and antipassives are to my knowledge untypical for split-S and fluid-S
languages, and Q has neither.  Passives occur in accusative languages
and antipassives in ergative languages.

Jörg.

______________________________________________________________________________
UNICEF bittet um Spenden fur die Kinder im Irak! Hier online an
UNICEF spenden: https://spenden.web.de/unicef/special/?mc=021101