Aw Jeez, look at the time!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Clark" <peter-clark@...>
> On Saturday 29 March 2003 09:59 pm, Sally Caves wrote:
>
> > So in other words, it's linked with intransitivity. In an active
> > language, which is a subset of an ergative language, the subject of an
> > intransitive verb can be treated as an agent if it is performing that
> > intransitive action in some form of volitionality. "I looked and
listened
> > eagerly." As opposed to "me looked and listened eagerly."
> Not necessarily. As your second quote from Trask indicated, there
are
> languages that "are rigidly divided into those taking agent subjects and
> those taking non-agent subjects."
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.
In other words, there are some languages
> where volitionality is not even considered.
If you mean in some "active languages," because of rigid division of verb
functions.
"Him fell" would be the only
> correct form,
for the word "fall," say.
> regardless of whether he slipped on the ice or hit the deck
> when the bullets started flying over his head. And in other cases, there
are
> some languages that have fixed agents or non-agents for certain verbs,
while
> other verbs can take an agent or patient as a subject, depending on
volition.
> Got that straight? :)
I understand Trask, if that's what you mean. :)
> 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."
After all, the chief distinguisher of the three
> is how they treat the subject of an intransitive verb.
Transitivitous. <G>
> 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?
> In a ergative system, the subject matches the case of the patient in a
> transitive sentence.
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.
> 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?
> > I guess I would call that "agentive." Or as Teoh suggests,
"volitional."
> > That's the distinction made in Teonaht in the "Split Nominative":
> > volitional and non-volitional subjects, regardless of whether they
govern
> > transitive or intransitive verbs.
> "Agentive" and "patientive" are the terms I use, but "volitional"
works as
> well (and is clearer as to what semantic principles are at work.)
Hurrah!
> > "Lexical (or "full") words" are defined in Trask as: "A word with real
> > semantic content, such as "green," "kitchen," and "swim." Again this
> > brings up the question of what is not real semantic content. So I look
up
> > "grammatical word," also known as "empty word," "form word," or the
> > familiar "function word." "A word with little or no intrinsic semantic
> > content which primarily serves some grammatical purpose: of, the." My
> > confusion has always been that I considered even function words as
serving
> > some semantic purpose. I have trouble seeing semantic and grammatical
(or
> > syntactical) as distinct, but I can understand how these terms function
> > within THIS context.
> I am guessing that "non-lexical" verbs would by like auxillary
verbs. In
> which case, that makes sense: "Him was falling" vs. "Him fell" do not
effect
> the agentivity or patientivity of the subject. "Was Xing" only adds an
aspect
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.
> It's just a natural
> extension from the intransitive to the transitive.
I don't think so...
> That is, while it is
> proper to say "the girl (E) heard the sound," it is wrong to say "the girl
> (A) heard the sound," right?
What happens is that the word "hear" changes meaning when A performs it as
opposed to E. A is listening to the sound. E is passively hearing it. A
listens to music. Same verb. E hears the neighbors music come on late at
night. Same verb.
> In other words, the subject of "hear,"
> regardless of whether it is in a transitive or intransitive sentence, is
> alwways E, yes?
Not in all cases.
> If so, then that's semantic, because the meaning of the verb
> is what determines the case of the subject, not the volition of the
subject
> itself.
In all the perception verbs, and in quite a few others (laugh, cry,
remember, forget, behave, stand, lie, and so forth), whether it's A or E
determines the meaning of the verb. But in many other cases, the verb
determines whether the noun is A or E, as in all the stative verbs and in
the verb "to be." This makes it difficult for me to decide whether the noun
or the verb should show the markings of volition. So I've made both do the
job.
> 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!
> 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.
> # 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.
Fabulous.
> (BTW, "split-S" refers to semantic systems, "fluid-S" to volitional
systems.
> Apparently, no one can agree on the terms. :)
I'm glad to get that cleared up. That's been a thorn in the side for five
years.
> > It's interesting to see Daniel's chart on page 9, with Dixon's
terminology.
> > Dixon makes a distinction between A and S (a subject that governs a
> > transitive verb and a subject that governs a non-transitive verb). This
is
> > a distinction I associate with an ergative language, but Teonaht has no
> > such distinction.
> Payne does the same: "A" and "P" for a transitive sentence
(regardless of
> system) and "S" for intransitive systems. The chart is almost identical to
> the one in D.M. I suspect that's because Payne is heavily influenced by
> Dixon.
>
> > Its agent and experiencer are not related to
> > transitivity. Only volitionality. So it doesn't really fit any of the
> > categories on page nine. I don't even think it matches Daniel's chart
on
> > page 10, because it hasn't up till now associated the experiencer with
the
> > patient.
> 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?
> 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.
> > In making the change I suggested, dropping lorfa to lorf in
> > non-agentive subjects and in patients, I'm moving T. towards a known
> > linguistic type. I can't tell whether this is an advantage or not.
Part
> > of what I want T. to suggest is an overlay of two different language
types.
> > It is accusative first, and volitional second, and moving further
towards
> > a more developed sense of volitionality.
> This seems like a perfectly natural progression to me, especially
if you are
> moving from a semantic-based system to a volitional system.
Thanks for all your patience and help, Peter. I find these abstractions
difficult to remember without constant reiteration.
Sally Caves
scaves@frontiernet.net
Eskkoat ol ai sendran, rohsan nuehra celyil takrem bomai nakuo.
"My shadow follows me, putting strange, new roses into the world."