Quoting takatunu <takatunu@...>:
> 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.
Doesn't voice by definition apply to verbs?
> 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".
Why not interpret the "plant" word as a verb with a voice marker? It seems to
me Tagalog is usually interpreted so?
> 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.)
What's a "transitive" voice as opposed to an active one?
What would you call the voice system of an ergative lang with active and
antipassive?
Andreas