Re: ergative? I don't know...
| From: | Mathias M. Lassailly <lassailly@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Friday, October 23, 1998, 19:50 |
|---|
> 1. Agent (AGT): entity which performs an activity or brings about
> >a change of state (e.g. the crowg-AGT applauded.)
> > 2. Patient (PAT): entity which- is viewed as existing in a state
> >or undergoing change; viewed a slocated or moving; viewed as affected or
> >effected by an entity (e.g. the sky-PAT is blue, the cat-PAT is in the
> >house, or the bird ate the worm-PAT)
> > 3. Experiencer (EXP) entity which experiences as emotion or
> >perception OR an Agent (fm above) which acts unitnentionally (e.g.
> >They-EXP love music or He-EXP fell (on accident)).
>
> Here's the standard analysis, as I understand it (and for some reason I had
> a very hard time understanding it).
>
> Most now divide noun phrases into _core_ and _non-core_ arguments. Non core
> arguments are things like locations, destinations, purpose, etc that
> represent "indirect objects" of the verb. They are almost always optional,
> and their functions vary pretty widely across languages (though they are
> not without common features).
>
> There are 3 basic functions that are found in sentences of human languages:
>
> A (most agent like argument, subject of an transitive verb), P (most
> patient-like argument, Object of an intransitive verb), S (Subject of an
> intransitive verb). S may be close to your "Experiencer", though that term
> is also used for something related but diffrent.
>
> These are often marked somehow by morpholoy or syntax, into cases:
>
> i. nom/acc system:
>
> Nominative (A, S)
> Accusative (P)
>
> ii. ergative/absolutive system:
> Ergative (A)
> Absolutive (P, S)
>
> iii. active system
> Agent (A)
> Patient (P)
> Subject (S)
>
> These are the most basic systems. Variations include using different case
> systems for nouns in a sentence and Argument morphemes in the verb (for
> instance nom/acc noun cases paired with ergative/absolutive clitic
> pronouns), different case systems depending on the tense of the verb or the
> presence of some auxiliary: e.g erg/abs in the future, but nom/acc in
> non-future.
>
> Some active (and ergative languages) may differentiate "agent-worthiness"
> in the S argument, so that intransitive sentences like "John kills" and
> "the door closes" use different cases to reflect the difference in
> agenthood.
>
> Some languages use one system (ergative or accusative) in one tense, and
> another in another tense (e.g. past tenses erg/abs, non-past nom/acc), some
> use one system on bound verbal pronouns, and the other on fully expressed
> nouns. These are the "split" systems.
>
> Many languages have a hierarchy of agenthood something like this (It's a
> postulated universal, but my memory may fail me on some of the later items):
>
> 1p > 2p > 3p > animate (present) > animate (absent) > inimate (present) >
> > inanimate (absent)
>
> This may affect the choice of case, based on some dividing line between
> agentive and non-agentive arguments (pick a line on the above, and you've
> got a possible system for deciding whether something is an agent).
>
> A few languages don't use the syntactic functions at all and instead mark
> whether the agent is higher or lower on the relvance hierarchy than the
> patient. this is a rare type, but is found in some Algonkian languages (is
> that the proper modern spelling?).
>
> The list of cases applied to other semantic roles, like location,
> experiencer, destination, purpose, etc. is variable. Frequently such cases
> my be used with special verbs, or in place of a main case to reflect an
> agenthood difference. S functions and P functions seem to be more prone to
> this from what I can tell. Other cases are not infrequently required in
> special constructions of some form or other.
>
> There's a good explanation of this stuff with examples in Payne's book, and
> Jack had a copy of longer screed I wrote on this (with citations). I
> suspect this post is clearer than that one was, though. I don't think it's
> made the FAQ yet, but it's on findmail.
>
No, this is not found on FAQ and it's a pity because most of conlangers' debate
axes thereon and it's very ennoying having to explain it again and again. Why
don't you volunteer and release a specific FAQ on that issue ? (PLEASE ! :-)
> Then theres' the trigger system, where several cases are in use, but one
> nound is always found in the "trigger" case: the verb is then inflected to
> mark what role that trigger is playing (agent/patient/experiencer/location,
> etc...) from some closed list of roles.
>
> These all interact with passivization and causatives, of course, as they
> change the number (and syntactic assignments) of core verb arguments, as
> well as the implications of agenthood in the verb. For instance an
> absolutive subject with a transitive verb can indicate an anti-passive
> (the book reads well). That's where it gets complicates (and interesting).
>
> Anyway, that's my current take on it.
>
> -- David
>
>
Could you please comment the attempts of certain conlangs like All-Nouns to create
an agentive from instruments ?
Mathias _________________________________________
-----
See the original message at http://www.egroups.com/list/conlang/?start=17670
--
Free e-mail group hosting at http://www.eGroups.com/