Re: Active languages

Quoting Henrik Theiling <theiling@...>:

> Hi!
>
> Andreas Johansson <andjo@...> writes:
> > Quoting Jörg Rhiemeier <joerg_rhiemeier@...>:
> >...
> > > (1) Lennára               hena      lennas.
> > >     sing-PRES-3SG:P-3SG:A child-AGT song-OBJ
> > >     `A child sings a song.'
> > >
> > > (2) Lennara         hena.
> > >     sing-PRES-3SG:A child-AGT
> > >     `A child sings.'
> > >
> > > (3) Lenná           lennas.
> > >     sing-PRES-3SG:P song-OBJ
> > >     `A song is sung.'
> > >
> > > (4) Lenna.
> > >     sing-PRES
> > >     `There is singing.'
> > >
> > > Yet, I call these "zero-agent" and "zero-patient" constructions
> > > and avoid the terms "passive" and "antipassive" because I don't
> > > think these can be properly called "verb voices", lacking any
> > > kind of morphological marking on the verb (other than the
> > > absence of agreement markers) or changes to the cases of the
> > > nouns.
> >
> > My Tairezazh does essentially the same. I've never thought of this as
> voices;
> > indeed, the original reason for introducing it was getting rid of passives.
> >
> > A voice interpretation would be rather perverse, since the object of a
> > subjectless verb can't be the subject of a coordinated verb, but can be the
> > object of one.
>
> Let me express my view that this is at least the same process
> implemented by voices.  Preventing it to be called a voice system
> which be a missing characteristic marker on the verb.
Is there a name for a voice that drops the subject of a transitive and keeps the
object as an object?

> Anyway, it looks similar to a voice system since if the above
> sentences' translations are correct, the arguments that are dropped
> are also *semantically* missing.  As I understand it, this is what
> voices do.  Dropping an argument without this semantical deletion
> would then clearly be something else.  Or does the third example mean
>
> 'Someone/I/You/We/He/She/They sing(s) a song'
>
> i.e., is the agent just unexpressed and can be inferred or is it
> missing, in which case a passive translation would be justified?
>
> As I wrote recently, I'd distinguish:
>
>    I don't know.        - argument explicitly expressed
>    Dunno.               - argument dropped, but semantically present
>    It is not known.     - argument deleted completely
>
> If both interpretations (dropped or deleted) are feasible, depending
> on context, it is also not quite like a voice system, but then,
> arguing to wanting to get rid of voices means you have also gotten rid
> of a bit of expressiveness.
As far as Tairezazh is concerned, both interpretations would be feasible, I
guess. Anyway, it's clear that the language does not have a *passive* voice;
objects simply cannot be promoted to subjecthood. The difference 'tween "the
man killed the dog" and "the dog was killed by the man" cannot easily be
retained in translation into Tairezazh; you'd have to distinguish the later as
something along the lines of "killed the dog-ACC; the agent-NOM was the
man-NOM".

And yes, this represents a loss of expressiveness. Part of the appeal of
conlanging is, as I see it, to put up arbitrary obstacles in your way and work
around them. Oh, and I saved the mental effort of thinking up an additional
suffix.* :)

* This is a lie; I did think up the suffix, and it is found in related
languages. Had it been retained in T, it would have had the form *-az.

                                                Andreas

PS "The man killed the dog" is _ez dazer staksek ez vaufs_. The "passive"
version'd have to be something monstrous like _staksek ez vaufs; e' zolel ak ez
dazer_.

Reply