Re: Active again.

Sally Caves wrote:

> Oooh, just when I thought I was getting a handle on this terminology! :(
Perhaps my reply to Peter's post or the first pages of
the theoretical background in my thesis clears things up
a bit more?

> > And "volitional" seems to imply that active languages
> > always make a distinction between volitional and non-
> > volitional actions/events, which is not the case at all.
> > (Hence the name "active" as in "active vs. stative".
> Can you give an example, Daniel?
Okay. Tim May gave an example in an earlier post, but I'll
repeat it here. The active marking of Guarani makes a
distinction between events and states. Events are marked
as A and states as P.

i)  SHE-rasi~ 'I'm sick'
ii) A-xa 'I walk'

_She-_ is the first person P pronominal prefix and _a-_ is
the first person A pronominal prefix. Being sick is a state
while walking is an event.

Lakhota on the other hand makes a distinction between verbs
that are controlled and those that are not.

iii) MA-hixpaye 'I fell'
iv)  ma-WA-ni 'I walk'

Both of these verbs are events, not states, but the non-controlled
event 'fall' is marked by the P pronominal affix _ma_, while
the controlled event 'walk' is marked by the A pronominal affix.

These are the two basic differences that can be made. Then we can
go on with languages in which it's merely enough if the action
is in some way performed or instigated (like 'sneeze' or 'hiccup'),
and in some languages you've even grammaticalized empathy and
significant effectedness (see Eastern Pomo in my paper).

> I believe that Teonaht has both fluid and split subjects.  On the one hand,
> there are many instances in which the verb remains the same while the
> subject, either an agent or an experiencer, determines its meaning.  On the
> other hand, these verbs are granted new gerundial suffixes, so that oua (the
> absolutive), is now either ouarem (if it is used with an agent)--"to
> listen"; or ouaned (if it is used with an experiencer)--"to hear."
This is a perfect example of fluid-S. (Although "listen/hear" is a
transitive verb.)

> > Then there are control/non-control languages vs. active/stative
> > languages. That is, what distinction is made by the different
> > marking of S.
> This needs huge explanation for me.  Do these languages constitute another
> language type?
No, they're all covered by "active". It's just what meaning the
different marking of the S has. What are the semantics behind
marking S as A? What does it mean when I express the S as P
instead of A? The intransitive subject S is always marked as
either A or P, but what that actually means can be extremely
intricate!

> What do you mean by control/non-control?  My term
> "volitionality" covers both matters of passively doing something and not
> having control over what you do.
So you mean that a subject can be marked as "volitional" but still
not have control over what s/he does? I've found the terms [+event],
[+control] and [+performance,effect,instigation] extremely useful.
Most of the semantics can be explained by these terms. Then again,
you have languages like Eastern Pomo, when these three terms (they
can be either plus or minus) just aren't enough.

And then again *again*, there are languages where there's no semantic
explanation for a certain marking (A or P) at all. I've found
that this can be because of lexicalization (words don't mean
what they used to mean, but the marking sticks to it), borrowing,
syntax, analogy, etc.

If you really want to know the semantics of the (somewhat) active
marking of Teonaht, my suggestion would be that you take a whole
bunch of verbs (begin with intransitive ones) and see if you can
find out the semantics. This should be either "control" or "performance, effect,
instigation" in the case of Teonaht (see
my thesis for performance, effect, instigation). Then you go on
and look at all the exceptions that are sure to arise. This is
IMHO the most interesting and fun part. Can the oddities be
explained by lexicalization, grammaticalization, syntax or analogy?
Or do they arise because of even more intricate semantics (a sort
of "subclasses" to "control" or "P/I/E")?

Hopefully, some parts of my thesis can be enlightening. OTOH,
they might be pure crap which doesn't explain anything at all,
and I'm just making you confused when you actually had everything
under control. I mean, who am I to make suggestions to a developed
language like Teonaht (created by an English prof), when I haven't
even one single language developed enough to do simple translation
exercises... ::humble::

> What is an active/stative language?  These
> virgules are confusing.  Is active/stative similar to nominative/accusative
> and ergative/absolutive?  Is it just another nomenclature for "active"
> languages?
Yes. "Active/stative" is just another name. I think the first
one to describe a language like this described a language which
had an active/stative distinction. Other names for the "active"
type is active/neutral, active/inactive, active/stative, active/static,
agentive, agent/patient, agentive/patientive, active/non-active,
and unaccusative/unergative. Phew. That's quite a lot. And I'm sure there are more. :)

> > Hmm. I'm not sure I'm actually making things clearer.
> Well, you have my questions to guide you in this understanding!
I hope I'm doing okay! :)

> > I be_good:NOM = I act good
> > I be_good:ACC = I am good
> > I be_good:DAT = I feel good
> Whoa!  Neat.  Verbs marked as cases?
Well, actually no (unfortunately :). This was just a simplification.
Here are the interlinears:

chokma-li
good-1SG:AGT
'I act good'

sa-chokma
1SG:PAT-good
'I am good'

an-chokma
1SG:DAT-good
'I feel good'

> Great job, Daniel, I'll say.
Thanks!

Eek! Look at the time! I'd better get back to doing
what they actually pay me to do here at work. :/

Daniel Andreasson