Quoting takatunu <takatunu@...>:
> A. Facts first:
>
> (i) The core actors of the Tagalog lexy equivalent to the English verb "to
> plant" are the gardener, the roses, the garden, a possible intrument, and
> maybe more, whatever you call them (agent, experiencer, subject, patient,
> locative patient, focus, instrument, instrumental patient, etc.)
Doesn't calling them "core" imply they're all mandatory? I was recently told
Tagalog verbs only ever need one argument ...
[snip]
> B. This is what I gather from some posts on this thread:
I'm not sure if I'm one of the posters you are refering to, but I'll try and
supply some answers anyway.
> (i) The two core actors of the English active verb "to plant" are the
> gardener and the roses.
I think this is one of those verbs that come in two versions; the direct
object doesn't have the same role in _I planted the roses_ and _I planted the
fields_. But I'd indeed interpret the former as you did.
[snip]
> D. A few random questions:
>
> (i) Did anyone read Christophe Grandsire and Barry Garcia's posts regarding
> trigger languages?
Most of it.
> (ii) Barry is a native speaker of a Philippino trigger language and is
> readily available on this list. Did anyone try and understand his viewpoint?
I tried to understand it, and failed as far the notion of the trigger system
being something fundamentally different from case-marking is concerned. He's
free to try and convince me again, should he so wish.
> (iii) Do the sun and the planets still revolve around the Earth just because
> the Church said so?
This isn't really helping anyone, is it?
> (iv) Do all languages still revolve around "agent" and "patient" just
> because English verbal voices are maimed and certain linguists cannot
> believe that some people have the ability to speak languages whose
> predicate-argument systems don't hierarchy actors but put several of them on
> an equal footing rather as possible predicates or core arguments?
I'm not certain that English's system is best described in terms of "agent"
and "patient"; the concepts map poorly to English's case, for a start.
> (v) Could anyone explain how the Ubiquitous Agent-Patient theory
If the categories of "agent" and "patient" were the basis of all case systems,
surely we'd expect active systems to be dominant? In reality, accusative and
ergative systems are much more common.
> works with
> intransitive 2-actor verbs: what actor is the "primary" object and "patient"
> of the Japanese verb michiru "to fill": the container or the content? And
> what is the "patient" of the Japanese verb wakaru "to understand": the one
> understanding something or the thing understood? The Indonesian active verb
> "to plant" has two forms: "Gardener menanam-i garden" and "Gardener
> menanam-kan roses". Should I discard the object "garden" as a "primary"
> object and valid patient of the verb "to plant" because this is not possible
> in English?
Only if you come up with good reasons to deny that "the fields" is an direct
object in English "I planted the fields".
Again, I'm not really sure if I'm the one in your targets, but I hope the
above is of some help.
Andreas