Re: Active again.

On Sunday 30 March 2003 01:40 am, Sally Caves wrote:
> Aw Jeez, look at the time!
        I know; I stayed up till 1:00 am last night writing. You people are making me
lose sleep! :)

> Just to clarify, the Trask quote indicated that it is "lexical verbs" in
> some active languages, not languages, that "are rigidly divided into those
> taking agent subjects and those taking non-agent subjects."  I suspect you
> meant this, but it helps me to keep the terminology straight.  Trask:  "In
> some active languages [he doesn't specify which], lexical verbs are rigidly
> divided into those taking agent subjects and those taking non-agent
> subjects."  This seems perfectly clear to me.
        Yes, this is what I was refering to with "semantic," rather than "volitional"
based active languages.

> If you mean in some "active languages," because of rigid division of verb
> functions.
        Correct. I should have been clearer that I was refering only to active
languages.

> >         Also, I don't think it would be correct to call an active system
> > a "subset"
> > of an ergative system. It's really more of a third option, as in
> > nominative-ergative-active.
> Okay.  Except that there is this limiting discourse with the term
> "transitivity."
        I think the whole transitivity thing is just the foundation; nominative /
ergative /active languages are first classified based on what they do with
the subject of an intransitive verb, and then work out from there to
transitive verbs.

> > In a nominative
> > system, the subject matches the case of the agent in a transitive
>
> sentence.
>
> The subject matches the case of the agent in an *intransitive* sentence in
> a nominative language.  "I ate."  "I" is both nominative and the agent.
> What does transitivity have to do with it in nominative languages?
        (N.B. you seem to understand it below, but I thought I would clarify it
further, in case there is someone who's still a little confused.) Ok, this is
a really fine linguistic point, but the "I" in "I ate" is not the *agent* in
a nominative language. It is the *subject* because it is in an intransitive
sentence. The "I" in "I ate meat," however, is the agent, since we have a
patient, "meat."
        Note that when I am using "agent," "patient," and "subject," I am not
refering to semantic roles. Semantically speaking, "I" is an agent,
regardless of whether the verb is transitive or intransitive, because "I" is
the agent of eating. But we're not talking about semantic roles here, but
rather case structures.
        Here's how transitivity would show up in the three different language types:
        Nominative:
                1. I(a) ate the meat(p).
                2. I(s) ran.
                3. I(s) fell.
        Sum: Intransitive verbs require that the subject be in the same case as the
actor in a transitive sentence.

        Ergative:
                1. I(a) ate the meat(p).
                2. Me(s) ran.
                3. Me(s) fell.
        Sum: Intransitive verbs require that the subject be in the same case as the
patient in a transitive sentence.

        Active (volitionally-based, as in Enamyn):
                1. I(a) ate the meat(p).
                2. I(s) ran.
                3. Me(s) fell.
        Sum: Intransitive verbs can flip-flop on the case of the subject, depending
on the semantic of the verb or the volition of the subject.

> Oh, I see what you mean.  Without this second argument, the first didn't
> make sense to me.   I tell you, it's transitivity that is the killer.
        Yes, probably because transitivity isn't a big deal in English, so we don't
think about it much.

> > And in an active system, the subject can be either
> > agentive or patientive, depending on volition, semantics, or which side
> > of the bed you got out of this morning.
>
> Volition expresses a semantic quality of an utterance, not a syntactic or
> grammatical quality.  That much I understand about how active languages
> work.  Ergative languages must mark the subject of a transitive verb
> differently from that of an intransitive verb, and accusative languages
> must mark the object  of a transitive verb differently from the object of a
> preposition or an intransitive verb--but both these requirements are
> syntactic or grammatical requirements, not semantic ones.  Am I right so
> far?
        Yes, so long as you understand my usage of Dixon's terminology (A, P, and S).

> >         Ok, that sounds much like a semantically based active system (as
>
> opposed to a
>
> > volitionally based one), despite your terminology.
>
> You mean my use of the word "volitional" to describe an active language?
> My main description of Teonaht is nominative/accusative, but I rather like
> the idea of a semantically based active system.  I don't think I say that
> it is volitionally based.  I do use the terms volitional and non-volitional
> to describe the distinct functions of S and E.
        Yes, I was refering to your usage of "volitional" because its less of matter
of volition than the semantics of the verb (which determine whether it is
"volitional" or not). But in this case, the terminology is not a big deal,
since I don't think it's been nailed down much for active languages. Maybe I
should use "split-s" and "fluid-s" rather than "semantic" and "volitional."
Would that be clearer? I.E., "split-s" sytems have some intransitive verbs
that require S to be marked the same as A, while other verbs require S to be
marked the same as P. "Fluid-s" systems have verbs that can take either S(a)
or S(p), depending on the volition of S in doing the action. Hence the
"fluid" part.

> > It's just a natural
> > extension from the intransitive to the transitive.
>
> I don't think so...
        Well, once you can say, "Me fell," or "I fell," then you can start saying
things like "Me heard the music" rather than "I heard the music." Not every
language would do this, but there is precedent with languages that
distinguish agent vs. experiencer in nominative sentences.

> >         Enamyn, by way of contrast, is a (mostly) volitionally based
> > active system. In other words, "the girl (E) heard the sound," would mean
> > much the same as
> > in Teonaht, but "the girl (A) heard the sound," would mean that she was
> > actively listening for the sound and heard it.
>
> There, you've got it.  That's the T. system.
>
> >         Ah! But reading further, I see that you have a "ambivolitional"
>
> verb, which
>
> > seems to depend on the volition of the subject. Of course, it's perfectly
> > natural to mix the two.
>
> BRAVO!
        Ok, problem solved then, yes?


> > Let me quote Payne from the Conlang Bible
> > ("Describing Morphosyntax," for the neophytes):   So I'm a neophyte, huh?
>
> Just kidding.  Of course I am.  I've had no formal training in linguistics
> proper.  Only in historical linguistics.
        Actually, I was refering to the title. :) There are some who have not yet
heard of the Conlang Bible, and thus would not understand the reference. ;>

> I'm glad to get that cleared up.  That's been a thorn in the side for five
> years.
        Just think of how much easier it would have been if you had the Conlang Bible
at your side to guide you! ;> Gee, I should be getting paid for the amount of
shilling I do for that book. :)

> >         I suppose that's the key point. I would still call it an active
> > system, even if it doesn't associate E with P, mostly because there's
> > still a split within
> > S: it's either A or E, rather than only A or only E (or P). Just out of
> > curiousity, is there an intransitive Teonaht sentence where S is P, and
> > *not* E?
>
> Only in what I'm calling the medio-passive [highly debatable term]:  "The
> pig cooks nicely."  The pig isn't doing the cooking, it's being cooked.  T.
> is well-aware that this is a curious use of "cook," so it puts "pig" into
> the patient case:
> il korma kwecyn. "The pig cooks."  Analogous with "the shirt smells," "the
> jacket wears well," and "the soup that eats like a meal."  [That phrase on
> certain chunky soup cans bothered me.  Soup isn't a meal?]
>
> > If yes, then you would have a three-way split between A, P, and E.
>
> But only in this one case.  Does that make it something different?
        Tough call. You could look at it as a case of animacy: since the pig isn't
"experiencing" anything, since it is (hopefully) in hog heaven, it's a
patient. Same with the jacket and the soup, but I'm not so sure about the
shirt, because from Enamyn's point of view, the shirt is actively smelling,
not a patient of smell. Of course, you could say that it is the sweat on the
shirt that is making it smell, but that's a second degree away from the topic
of the sentence. But I don't know the Teonaht worldview, so maybe an
inanimate object can be the patient of smelling, if such is not its usual
activity. (For instance, would "The flower smells" be patient or agent in
Teonaht?)
        Side note: I've been debating whether to add "force" (an inanimate agent) to
Enamyn's case system. In which case, it would be "The shirt(f) smells,"
rather than "The shirt(a) smells."

>  > If not,
> >
> > then you've still got the two way split between A and P of an active
>
> system,
>
> > except that P is in a different case. :)
>
> I can accept that.
        Well, as I said, it's up to you to determine how you treat medio-passives.
Although let me just make sure I have things clear in my head. Does Teonaht
looks like this:
        Transitive sentences:
                1. I(A) ate the meat(P).
                2. I(E) heard loud music(P). (And it woke me up.)
        Intransitive sentences:
                3. I(Sa) ran. (The subject has the same case as an agent)
                4. Me(Se) fell. (The subject has the same case as an experiencer)
                5. The pig(Sp) cooks. (The subject has the same case as a patient)

        :Peter

--
Oh what a tangled web they weave who try a new word to conceive!

Replies