Re: THEORY: Tagalog "Voice" (was: Voice, Mood, and Tense)

Nik Taylor wrote:

>Kristian Jensen wrote:
>> The difference between voice and the focus system lies in the valency =
of
>> the verbs. In voice languages, when you change the voice of a verb, =
you
>> change its valency as well. In trigger languages, the valency remains =
the
>> same across different focus patterns.
>
>While your references to trigger languages are interesting, they are
>often confusing to me, since I don't know even the basics about them.
>Do you know of any good resources (preferably online) about trigger
>systems?  They're so utterly fascinating to me that I'd like to be able
>to experiment with them.
There are very little, if any, _good_ resources online about trigger
languages, let alone Tagalog. Most of the online Tagalog resources=20
that I have seen deal with the language on a very superficial level.=20
But a good introduction to Tagalog structure is Schachter's article=20
on Tagalog in Comrie's "Major Languages of the World". There is=20
supposedly also a good grammar on Tagalog (which I have had no=20
incentive to purchase). I think its

What I know of trigger languages is mostly through a semi-native=20
speaker intuition I have as a semi-native Tagalog speaker. So=20
unfortunately I do not know of many references for the subject.=20

Based on my seminative speaker intuition and a few resources, I=20
have created my own theory as to what exactly a trigger language=20
is. From what I have read, there does not seem to be any concensus=20
among linguists on what triggers really are.

>> In both verbal forms "bumili" and "binili", the valency between these
>> two has not changed. That is, the number of required arguments of =
each
>> of these verbs is exactly the same. In these cases, the required
>> argument is the trigger itself:
>
>Do all verbs in trigger languages require only one argument?
>
From what I can tell, that is exactly the case. My theory basically=20
postulates that trigger languages are languages with only one=20
required argument. So the notion of subject versus object cannot=20
apply.

>> Patient Focus
>>    "Ang sabon ay binili"
>>    TRG soap INV buy:PAT
>>    The soap was the item that was bought.
>
I realize now (as a semi-native speaker) that I have made a small=20
error in my examples. The sample should read:

   "Sabon ang binili"
   soap TRG buy:PAT
   The soap was the item that was bought.

>Couldn't that just be translated as "The soap was bought"?
>
Yes it could. But I wanted to differentiate between voice languages=20
and trigger languages. Also, it is difficult already in the first=20
place to make a literal English translation of Tagalog sentences. So=20
I chose to make a literal translation that best illustrates how the=20
verb is being used in the sentence. In the above example, the verb is=20
being used as patient-nominalized predicate: "...the item that was=20
bought".=20

Indeed, my theory also stipulates that verbs in trigger languages are=20
always nominalized first before being used as a predicate. In other=20
words, only nominal predicate constructions exist - hence, the notion=20
of subject versus object cannot apply. If I translated it as "The=20
soap was bought", then I'm not showing how the verb has been=20
nominalized. Whereas, "...the item that was bought" is a better=20
translation of a verb for "buy" that has been nominalized as the=20
patient.

-kristian- 8)