Re: Help in Determining Asha'ille Typology

Quoting "Thomas R. Wier" <trwier@...>:

> Quoting 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
>
> But in principle, split-S languages *don't* have semantic
> marking.  It just so happens that there is a strong tendency
> for semantic and syntactic features to coincide in this way.
> But as far as the system is concerned, semantics have nothing
> to do with it. (The case is otherwise in a fluid-S system.)
I appear to have some communicational problems as regards this thread. I tried
to say that the language could be fluid-S.

Now, a split-S language which fairly consistently used the unexpected marking
would still prompt us to search for an explanation, would it not?

                                                         Andreas

Reply