Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Ergative

From:Nik Taylor <fortytwo@...>
Date:Wednesday, October 21, 1998, 0:22
Sally Caves wrote:
> Okay, so this clears up a question I asked you some time ago... I didn't > have the right term for it, only noting that what you did with Tokana > seemed similar to what the Old English do: could the impersonal verb in > Old and Middle English fall into the category of "experiencer dative > construction"? What is the history of this construction? > > Me thinketh hit gedwolsum swa to donne...
In this case, it's actually quite logical if you look at the underlying semantics. The prototypical subject is a volitional agent (e.g., "I hit John"), while in "I think", or, better yet, "I like/love", "I" has no agentive properties at all, so it makes sense to put it in another case, and dative is for indirectly affected nouns. Also, did Old English have "be + dative" for I have? Is that the source of Modern English "woe is me"? That is "woe is (to) me" = "I have woe" = "I am woeful"? It's certainly not a simple identity, it's not *"I am woe". -- "It's bad manners to talk about ropes in the house of a man whose father was hanged." - Irish proverb http://members.tripod.com/~Nik_Taylor/X-Files ICQ: 18656696 AOL: NikTailor