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.

                                                   Andreas

Reply