Re: Triggeriness ...

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.)

(ii) Each of these different actors may be picked as the main actor of the
lexy "to plant" and becomes the predicative pivot for expressing the process
of planting.

(iii) Languages with this capacity are called "trigger languages".

(iv) English verbal voices lack that capacity.

(v) Ergo English does not qualify as a trigger language.


B. This is what I gather from some posts on this thread:

(i) The two core actors of the English active verb "to plant" are the
gardener and the roses.

(ii) The gardener is called the "agent" and the roses the "patient" of that
English verb.

(iii) All other possible actors of this English verb are "secondary",
including the garden.

(iv) English is underlying all other languages.

(v) Ergo (1) the only core actors of the Tagalog lexy equivalent to the
English verb "to plant" are necessarily the agent and a "patient", (2) the
Tagalog patient is necessarily the roses and (3) the "trigger system"
doesn't exist.


C. Now, Rivarol's famous thesis:

(i) French natural word order is Subject-Verb-Object.
(ii) French people are the most logical people in the world.
(iii) Ergo the most logical word order is Subject-Verb-Object.


D. A few random questions:

(i) Did anyone read Christophe Grandsire and Barry Garcia's posts regarding
trigger languages?

(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?

(iii) Do the sun and the planets still revolve around the Earth just because
the Church said so?

(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?

(v) Could anyone explain how the Ubiquitous Agent-Patient theory 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?

Mathias

Replies