Re: Active again.

Peter Clark wrote at 2003-03-29 23:58:37 (-0600)
 > Let me quote Payne from the Conlang Bible
 > ("Describing Morphosyntax," for the neophytes):
 >
 > # As might be expected, split-S and fluid-S languages do not
 > # constitute two mutually exclusive language types. Typically, a
 > # given language will have some intransitive verbs that require
 > # S(A) subjects, others that require S(P) subjects, and still
 > # others that allow either S(A) or S(P) subjects.
 >
 > (BTW, "split-S" refers to semantic systems, "fluid-S" to volitional
 > systems.  Apparently, no one can agree on the terms. :)
 >

I'm not sure that I really like this use of the terms "semantic" and
"volitional".  "Lexical" would perhaps be better for split-S
languages, as the point is that it's a property of the particular verb
- you can phrase this as "it's part of the semantics of the verb", but
that sounds like computer science talk to me.  The distinction in
fluid-S systems is at least as "semantic" in the sense of relating to
the meaning of the utterance.

"Volitional" isn't as confusing (and I can't think of a really good
alternative) but I think it's misleading if you're applying it to all
fluid-S systems, because the distinction isn't always one of volition.
Sometimes it's an active/stative distinction, e.g. in Daniel's Guarani
example:


 | karú (AGT) 'to have lunch or supper, or dine'  --> active
 | karú (PAT) 'to be a glutton'                   --> stative