Re: Active again.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Andreasson Vpc-Work" <daniel.andreasson@...>


> Peter Clark wrote:
>
> > "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.
>
> You seem to be doing fine by yourselves in this discussion
> (plus, I made a change some time ago never to discuss active
> languages again :). But I have to make some comments.
>
> To name the two types "semantic" and "volitional" is something I don't
understand at all. "Semantic" leads
> my thoughts into languages such as Tokana or Ebisedian
> which mark semantic roles rather than syntactic function.
Oooh, just when I thought I was getting a handle on this terminology! :(

> 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?

> So I think there are two points to be made here. First of
> all, there are "fluid-S" and "split-S". One can argue that
> fluid-S languages are more semantic than split-S languages
> in their marking of the intransitive argument, but split-S
> languages base their active marking on semantics as well.
> IMHO it's just that the verbal semantics of fluid-S languages
> is a bit broader. "Fall" can mean any type of throwing yourself
> to the ground in a fluid-S language, and then it's up to the
> speaker to say if it's a controlled or non-controlled event.
> Split-S languages have two verbs instead. (This is a generalization.)
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
effects how the tense and aspect particles are formed.  This has happened to
an enormous number of verbs that originally had only one form.  So I can't
say WHAT Teonaht is.  As I explained it most recently to Peter, it's a
palimpsest, sort of, an old system that is being overtaken by a new one.  As
I explained to Peter, who wanted to know if I had, in intransitive
sentences, "I (a) ate, but "Me (e) fell."  Teonaht would never allow the old
object pronoun to stand as a verb in "me fell."  Its pronominal system is
cussedly nominative/accusative, which is why it is developing the
"emphasized" pronouns, i.e., pronouns that make a distinction between agent
and experiencer.  These are still used with a resumptive old pronoun:  Yry,
nelry kebo.  "As for me (e), I (nominative) fell (with experiencer marking
on the prefixed preterite particle -(n)el.

> 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?  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.  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?

> Another point to be made is that it's the verbal semantics
> that is important in most active languages, not the semantics
> of the NP (i.e. "S"). This is why most active languages
> are head-marking and not case-marking (except for Georgian).
Yes, Peter pointed this out.

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

> Oh! And Sally, you should really take a look at Chickasaw!
> Besides being "active" in the intransitive sense, they have a three way
distinction with some transitive verbs as well. They can be marked as
nominative (your "agent"), accusative ("patient")
> and dative ("experiencer"). The most famous example is that of
> the verb "be good".
>
> 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?

> Since you seem to have read my so-called thesis, I guess you've
> seen this by yourself by now. There are a lot of references to
> Chickasaw there as well. Pages 30-31 have some interesting info
> on Experiencers and Benefactives, etc.
I'll take a look.  I have to actually print the thesis to read it.  .pdf
format is slow to scroll up and down.

Great job, Daniel, I'll say.


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."