Re: Help in Determining Asha'ille Typology

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andreas Johansson" <andjo@...>
To: <CONLANG@...>
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 2:01 PM
Subject: Re: Help in Determining Asha'ille Typology


> Quoting Joe <joe@...>:
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Andreas Johansson" <andjo@...>
> >
> > > Quoting Joe <joe@...>:
> > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Andreas Johansson" <andjo@...>
> > > >
> > > > > Quoting "Thomas R. Wier" <trwier@...>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Quoting Andreas Johansson <andjo@...>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 1) I eat food.
> > > > > > > > 2) I run.
> > > > > > > > 3) I fall.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [...]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > What would we call a language that marks "I" from (1) the same
as
> > "I"
> > > > in
> > > > > > > (3), and "I" in (2) the same as "food" in (1)? Beyond weird,
that
> > is.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This would still be a split-S language.  Split-S languages are
> > > > > > defined, in contrast to fluid-S languages, by the fact that
verbs
> > > > > > simply subcategorize for whether the single argument patterns as
> > > > > > the NP-1 of transitives or NP-2 of transitives.  It is also
> > > > > > characteristic of such languages that many verbs take the
unexpected
> > > > > > marking, such as patientive for run or agentive for fall.
> > > > >
> > > > > I didn't state my question clearly enough to exclude the
possibility
> > of a
> > > > > language with semantic marking. You could have language that uses
> > > > >
> > > > > I:PAT fall
> > > > >
> > > > > for a voluntary falling and
> > > > >
> > > > > I:AGT fall
> > > > >
> > > > > for involuntary. (Case names assigned to make sense with
transitives.)
> > > >
> > > > Wouldn't it be the other way round?  I mean, as far as I can gather,
the
> > > > patient is the thing that something happens to, and the agent is
what
> > causes
> > > > it to happed.
> > > >
> > > > So, for instance
> > > >
> > > > I.PAT fall
> > > >
> > > > could be said to mean 'I am being caused to fall', whereas
> > > >
> > > > I.AGT fall
> > > >
> > > > would be said to mean 'I am causing myself to fall'.
> > > >
> > > > If the other way around, using the terms 'Agent' and 'Patient', I
think,
> > > > would be unsatisfactory.
> > >
> > > But if we switched the labels PAT and AGT, the hypothetical language
would
> > > express "I eat food" as
> > >
> > > I:PAT eat food:AGT
> > >
> > > which to my mind is even less satisfactory. One could, of course,
simply
> > call
> > > the cases "1" and "2", if one felt like.
> > >
> >
> > Hmm?  I'm sorry, I didn't say switch cases round in every case, merely
in
> > the example you gave.
>
> What I'm trying to discuss is the possibility of a language which has the
same
> case marking on transtive subjects and intransitive patients, and another
one
> on transitive objects and intransitive agents.
Oh...I see.

Sorry.  But I don't see how such a system could possibly exist.   Lets split
this into its constituent parts:

Lets have four cases: Subjective, Objective, Agentive and Patientive(First
two in intransitive sentences, latter two in transitive) -

I.AGE food.PAT eat - I cause food to be eaten (by me)('I eat food')

Alright, now

I.SUB fall - I cause myself to fall('I jump down', possibly)
I.OBJ fall - I am caused to fall('I fall over')

Okay, now, assuming these boundaries - you want to unify the Subjective with
the Patientive case, and the Objective with the Agentive.  However, I would
say that this is impossible(except, perhaps, through phonological changes,
but leaving these out of the picture), thanks to the fact that these are
opposite in meaning.

The Subjective and Agentive both signify that the noun in question causes
something to happen, however, the Objective and Patientive signify that the
noun in question has something happen to it. So it would be somewhat
illogical to unify the two.    Perhaps I'm proving the Sapir-Whorf
Hypothesis here, but I just can't see it happening.

>                                                    Andreas
>

Reply