Re: non-accusative, non-ergative, non-active ...
|From:||Andreas Johansson <and_yo@...>|
|Date:||Monday, March 11, 2002, 9:54|
Stephen Mulraney wrote:
>On Fri, 8 Mar 2002 13:41:04 -0500
>Andreas Johansson <and_yo@...> wrote:
> > If I had a language with no case affices, where word order in sentences
> > a transitive verb is SOV and in ones with an intransitive SV, could that
> > language be meaningfully be classified as accusative, ergative, active
> > not any of those three?
>Now this is spooky - I'm just planning such a lang! I was thinking
>of it as ergative, but now I realise that that's because it's a
>development/modification/rectification/rewrite of an ergative one.
>Actually that's a lie - I've just noticed yours is SOV/SV, while mine is
>VOS/VS. Same difference, though - my train of thought still applies -
>I think ergative is a reasonable description since the S of an
>intransitive verb is marked in the same way (appearing next to the V),
>as the O of a transitive verb. Personally I think it's a nice natural
>way for ergativity to arise.
>What is 'active' used in this sense btw? If I was to make a guess,
>propose the following: in the following schematic Si="Subject of
>intr. vb", and St/Ot = "Subject/object of tr. vb.", and the star
>indicates which are formally identified by the system
>Accusative Si* St* Ot
>Ergative Si* St Ot*
>?Active? Si St* Ot*
>OK, that doesn't seem like a very useful system
>The two other possibilites are
> Si* St* Ot* - completely nonfunctional?
> Si St Ot - ah, makes more sense - is this active?
>Is it the last one, or am I on completely the wrong track?
I used "active" in the sense described in Daniel Andreasson's thesis on
"Active Languages"; an active language is one where the intranstive subject
S is sometimes marked like the transitive subject A and sometimes like the
transitive object P. It'd thus include "fluid-S" and "split-S" languages.
Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.