Re: Active again.

Peter Clark wrote:

> I forgot where I learned that terminology, but this discussion with Sally
> convinced me that, like you say, it's not very clear. At first I didn't like
> the alternative (split-S and fluid-S), but in the end it would take less
> explaining and be clearer just to use that, I guess.
Actually, the distinction between split-S and fluid-S isn't
very useful at all. Well, it might be, but not for this
discussion. Almost all active languages are fluid-S in some
instances. The only exception I know of is Georgian, and I'm
not sure about that either. It's useful to see it as a scale
instead of two opposites. Most active languages allow for a
lot (or just a few) verbs to take either A or P marking.

But split-S and fluid-S has nothing to do with transitivity.
Both are applied to intransitive verbs only. As far as I am
concerned, active languages are just about intransitive verbs.
If they then go on and expand that marking to some transitive
verbs as well, then fine with me. But "active" in its basic sense is just what the
language does with its intransitives.

Piata (MNCL) is a "pure" active language in the sense that
it marks some S like P and some like A, but transitive
sentences are accusative.

Teonaht, OTOH, has expanded the idea, but it's still active
in its basic sense (as far as I understand).

Daniel Andreasson

Replies