Re: Triggeriness ...

Staving Andreas Johansson:
>Quoting Barry Garcia <barry_garcia@...>:
>
> > Constructed Languages List <CONLANG@...> writes:
> > >Then, Tagalog
> > >is not an accusative nor and ergative language,
> > >because it has only one core case (the 'subject'
> > >or 'trigger' or however you like to name it) and
> > >this case has none of the roles assigned to it by
> > >default, being its semantics entirely determined
> > >by and dependent on verbal voice. Is there a name
> > >for this structure? Well, I think that's what
> > >the label "trigger language" refers to.
> >
> > I think it is a mistake to try to correlate trigger languages with those
> > with "case". I see no evidence there is case (in the traditional sense).
>
>Let me get this straight; every Tagalog requires a verb bearing the "trigger"
>marker; just WHAT would that be if not a case marker?
>
It occurs to me that it would be possible for a distinction to exist within
trigger languages, between ones where "Trigger role 1" = "subject",
"Trigger role 2" = "object", and those where "Trigger role 1" =
"Intransitive subject or transitive object", "Trigger role 2" = "Transitive
subject". So, while it would not be useful to classify trigger languages as
Nom/Acc or Erg/Abs as a primary classification, there may be scope for a
secondary classification as "Nom/Acc-like trigger language" or
"Erg/Abs-like trigger language".

On the subject, I have an idea floating about for a trigger-incorporating
language.

Pete

Replies