Re: Active again.

On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 06:32:13PM -0600, Peter Clark wrote:
> On Saturday 29 March 2003 05:55 pm, Sally Caves wrote:
> > Joa~o has expressed some worries that too much of Conlang is off-topic.
> > Okay, here's a question I have about natural languages of the "active"
> > persuasion.  What natural languages are considered "active," and why is
> > this particular term invoked?
>         Check out Daniel Andreasson's thesis on active languages:
> http://home.swipnet.se/escape/active.pdf
Cool.

> > Why "active"?  The term does not seem intuitive.
> Because it sounds better than "split intransitive"? :) I suppose it's
> because active systems can show the level of activity involved: "He
> fell,"  means he deliberately fell, while "Him fell," means he slipped
> on the ice or something. In the first example, he is an agent in his
> falling, while in the second, he is the recipient of falling.
[snip]

Hmm, sounds like active languages should better be termed "volitional
languages"?


T

--
It's amazing how careful choice of punctuation can leave you hanging:

Reply