Nik Taylor wrote:
> Pasasgen/Mensa wrote:
> > (And possibly also distinguish between verbs that
> > don't have an agent, eg. "I sleep" and verbs that do.)
>=20
> Isn't that the same as the intransitive/transitive distinction? =
Unless
> you're using "agent" in a different way than I am, an agent only =
exists
> in transitive sentences.
Sorry. I meant agent as a semantic roll. 'The balloon broke' or
'I freeze'. I.e. the verb expresses an event or process that isn't
an action and thus doesn't have an agent. I was thinking about
not allowing non-agents as subjects. (E.g. one might say=20
'Me freeze' instead of 'I freeze' or something in that direction).
> > The question is if transitive verbs should be conjugated
> > as intransitive if they don't have an object.
>=20
> I'd say no. You could, perhaps, use affixes for passive and
> antipassive, tho. In other words, take your example "I eat food". =
The
> passive form would be "food is eaten", the anti-passive, "I eat".
> Perhaps those would be conjugated as intransitive verbs, but an affix
> should be used to indicate what is missing.
Hmm... That's an idea. I'll have to think about that.
> > Do you have any comments?
>=20
> Interesting idea. In my Eastern, the old antipassive particle, _su_ =
has
> evolved into a transitive marker _s(u)_ (/s(@)/), used whether or not
> the object is present. Eastern has evolved from ergative to
> accusative. That's the closest I have now, but an earlier conlang of
> mine, Tqa-Cize^ (/tTa tSi'zE/) had particles to indicate transitive =
and
> ditransitive, intransitive and stative (what you call zero-transitive)
Actually I couldn't remember the name so I made one up.=20
My books (which I now took a glance at) says 'impersonal', e.g. 'rain'.
> were indicated by no such particle being present.
Yes. That's what I'm talking about.=20
It seems I have to decide whether it should be erg or acc.
Thanks for your ideas!
Daniel Andreasson