Re: Ergative

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