Re: THEORY: unergative

I think there must be some difference in conceiving
the actance, or let's say different attitudes towards
it. Otherwise, why would the ergative way look so
strange to us at first sight ? (and probably the
accusative way for the ergative users too ?)

If something is marked in a language, it usually means
that it's not the usual, general meaning. So if
ergative is marked in Basque, while in Latin
accusative is marked (for otherwise strictly
equivalent sentences), so it seems to me that it
reflects a different attitude.

When I come upon a difference like that, I have to try
thinking the (for me) not-usual way, to understand it.
Just saying that I have to add an ergative mark to the
agent in Basque doesn't mean a thing to me, I have to
feel it.

For instance, in Russian, it's rather strange at first
for a foreigner to say *Mne xochet'sja pit'* (I'm
thirsty, or I want to drink). The Russian form means
something like *To-me one-wants drink*, or maybe
*There is a want of drinking applying to me*. But
after some practice, it comes out quite naturally,
because one really FEELS the expression from the
inside. The same for *mich friert* in German (very
different from French *j'ai froid* or *je gele*.

In Alsace, I often noticed a strange way for
expressing the genitive: instead of saying *Joseph's
father*, one can say *to Joseph his father* (*d'Seppi
si Vater*). So at school some guys translated
literally *a Joseph son pere*, what made the teacher
jump like a whole bunch of fleas. But one CAN
understand why it is said so, if one can think the
Alsacian way (it's not especially Alsacian, I think
it's called the Saxon genitive ?if I'm not mistaken).
It even sounds more natural after a while than the
French way *le pere de Joseph*, because Joseph is
better known to the interlocutor than his father, so
one first focuses on Joseph, and from Joseph to his
father.

This doesn't mean that other people conceive the world
differently (although they might do), but they are
certainly differences in spite of all.

--- Joe <joe@...> wrote:
> Doug Dee wrote:
>
> >In a message dated 2/22/2004 2:57:08 AM Eastern
> Standard Time,
> >herodote92@YAHOO.COM writes:
> >
> >
> >
> >>2/ But there are languages, like Basque, various
> >>Caucasian langs and others, using another way :
> >>By-me shot the sheriff
> >>*me* being in ergative case, and *the sheriff* in
> >>absolutive
> >>What conception does such a form reflect ? I think
> I
> >>understand it as : "There was some
> sheriff-shooting,
> >>and that was done by me". Maybe I'm wrong ?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I think it's potentially misleading to use the term
> "conception" here.  There
> >is no reason to believe that Basque speakers
> "conceive" of the proposition "I
> >shot the sherriff" any differently than English
> speakers do.  Their grammar
> >just marks things differently.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Well, if the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is correct, they
> do concieve it
> differently.  Not that I'm saying it is.  But it's a
possibility.


=====
Philippe Caquant

"Le langage est source de malentendus."
(Antoine de Saint-Exupery)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools