Re: Triggeriness ...
| From: | takatunu <takatunu@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Tuesday, December 16, 2003, 6:37 |
|---|
Garth Wallace <gwalla@...> wrote:
I don't think anybody was arguing for that (and certainly not premise
iv). It looked to me like some people were arguing that trigger systems
were a particular kind of voice system that can promote any semantic
case role to a core argument.
>>>>
If so then I must agree. However I thought I read "verbal voice system"
instead.
In a trigger system each actor may become a predicate for other actor who in
turn become the arguments of the former:
X['s role is a] planting_agent [of/in, with] Y
X ['s role is a] planted_vegetal [in/by/etc.] Y
X['s role is a] planted_medium [idem] Y
X['s role is a] planting_instrument [idem] Y
ec.
There is no "verb" here. I should not even use the term of "actor" here but
I don't know the English linguistic equivalent to French "entité" and
"comportement".
According to my own linguistics classes (in France in the 80's), this is
called "attributive voice" system and is different from the "active voice"
system to which the "verbal voice" system pertains (then the verbal voices
may be transitive, active, passive, mediopassive, etc.)
Replies