Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Help in Determining Asha'ille Typology

From:Andreas Johansson <andjo@...>
Date:Thursday, August 7, 2003, 13:01
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

Joe <joe@...>