Re: Active languages

Trying to finish my reply from before.

I am a mathematics/cybernetics type, not a linguistics type, so I hope
someone who knows better than I may be able to provide references,
clarifications, corrections, and fill in my blank spots.

--- In conlang@yahoogroups.com, Carsten Becker <naranoieati@B...> wrote:
> [snip]
> question about Active languages. First, is
> there a need for a (anti-)passive voice in an active
> language
> [snip]
I was saying, a Fluid-S Language needs both:

V3 A class of intransitive verbs that can, for some subjects, take the
subject either in the Ergative or the Accusative
(same verb, same subject, only the case of the subject differs);

N3 A class of "nominals" (nouns and/or pronouns) that can, for some
intransitive verbs, appear either as an Ergative Subject or as an
Accusative Subject
(same verb, same subject, only the case of the subject differs).

(Obviously a language can't have V3 verbs without N3 nominals,
and vice-versa.)

Assuming that occurs.

If the difference between
the intransitive clause with the Ergative subject, and
the otherwise-identical clause with the Accusative subject,
is not one of Tense, Mood, or Aspect,
or of Polarity or Illocutionary Force:
then it is usually (afaict) analysed as/labeled as
a difference of Voice.

In that event:
The clause with the Ergative Subject
is usually said to be in the Active Voice.
(This is consistent with our intuition about what Active Voice means.)

But, the clause with the Accusative Subject
is usually said to be in the Middle Voice.

I needed to look at examples to get a good feeling of why the
terminology "Middle Voice" (to contrast with "Active Voice")
was considered apt for these clauses.
Unfortunately I won't be able to look up any such examples today.

---------------

OTOH transitive clauses in Active/Stative languages are not usually
written of as appearing in Passive or Anti-Passive Voices.

I guess there are transitive clauses in the Middle Voice
in Fluid-S languages.

-----

Speaking as a mathematical, cybernetical conlanger-wannabe,
I cannot see any reason why your Active language should not have
a "Passive" and/or an "Anti-Passive" voice.

But it appears that is not what usually occurs in Active languages;
or at least most linguists who write about them, don't use those terms.

-----

Interested to see your results.

Tom H.C. in MI