Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Active again.

From:JS Bangs <jaspax@...>
Date:Wednesday, May 21, 2003, 20:49
Daniel Andreasson Vpc-Work sikyal:

> Markus Miekk-oja skrev: > > > > Some sort of voice, like Henrik suggested, would perhaps be possible. I'm > > > eager to see what you, Henrik, can come up with! > > > It's called antipassive - making an intransitive verb to behave like a > > transitive one, taking an AGT instead of PAT as subject - > > She:AGT hit him:PAT and fell:ANTIP, or, She:AGT ran and fell:ANTIP > > Yes, I know of the antipassive. But what it does is demoting the > object of a transitive clause, unless the definition of the > antipassive is wider than I know. So you make intransitive clauses > out of transitive ones, just like with the passive voice. Just > the other way around, so to say.
If I remember "Describing Morphosyntax" correctly, this is properly called a "switch". He gives a couple of examples that behave exactly like what you describe here--swapping the normal valency of the verbs.
> What you *could* use the antipassive for in the above examples > is demoting the object in the first clause (him:PAT) to an > oblique case. This wouldn't be very useful though, because > case-marking in Piata isn't so much about transitivity, but > about control. The "subject" of 'hit' is marked as AGT regardless > of its being transitive or intransitive, because the hitter is > in control. And the "subject" of 'fall' is always PAT, because > falling isn't something you control (at least not in this case). > > So, what you would end up with is this: > > She:AGT hit:ANTIPASSIVE (at him:OBL) and [she:PAT] fell. > > The problem with the "subject" of both verbs taking different > case-marking remains.
Don't do this. I really liked your previous solution (with the morpheme labeled SWAP), and the antipassive construction seems far less elegant and interesting. Jesse S. Bangs Jesus asked them, "Who do you say that I am?" And they answered, "You are the eschatological manifestation of the ground of our being, the kerygma in which we find the ultimate meaning of our interpersonal relationship." And Jesus said, "What?"