Re: Active again.

On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 10:59:37PM -0500, Sally Caves wrote:
[snip]
> The question is whether Teoh's language has active tendencies if it
> doesn't, as he tells us, have a "subject."  He does, however, have an
> originative.  Can you explain, Teoh, how that's different from an agent?
I'm not sure how to explain it in terms of agent/patient/etc.. There are
two cases in Ebisedian that are closest to an "agent", the originative and
the instrumental. The originative is a single point of origin of an action
or event, whereas the instrumental is a continual dynamo for the action or
event; that which drives the event to its completion.

Hence, while you(orig) speak, you(instr) drive a car, because you are
directing the vehicle until you arrive at the destination. In the same
way, you(orig) can send a gift, but you(instr) can deliver the gift
yourself, as well.

> I (orig.agent)  look at the man (recep/patient), me (recep./patient)
> sees the man (orig./agent)?  Hmmm.  Except that the "man" isn't really
> an agent, is he?  He might not even know he's being looked at.
[snip]

That's why it's hard to label the originative as "agent". The Ebisedian
instrumental case is a more likely candidate.

One thing about Ebisedian is the 3rd-person-like view of things: it
doesn't care about the volitionality of the nouns, so no noun is
emphasized above the others. What is more important is the verb, and how
individual nouns are related to the verb.


T

--
I am BOFH. Resistance is futile. Your network will be assimilated. --
darthaggie, K5