Re: Active languages

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 13:32:00 +0200, Henrik Theiling <theiling@...>
wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> Jeffrey Jones <jsjonesmiami@...> writes:
> > On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 09:57:05 +0200, Henrik Theiling
<theiling@...>
> > > Carsten Becker <naranoieati@...> writes:
> > > > Hey all,
> > > >
> > > > I've got two question about Active languages. First, is
> > > > there a need for a (anti-)passive voice in an active
> > > > language and second, ...
> > >
> > > Converning the decisions for my active langs: Tyl Sjok has neither,
> > > Qthyn|gai has both. :-)
> > >
> > > **Henrik
> >
> > Tyl Sjok does have argument deletion, however. With null head-marking???
>
> Yes.  But whether it is dropped or deleted is just not obvious.  Quite
> ambiguous thingy.
>
> Still, a change in focus (which voice often implements) may be shown
> with a focus particle (possibly additional to dropping (but not
> deleting) an unimportant argument).
I didn't know "deleting" was distinct from "dropping". What exactly is the
difference?

Jeff

> Further, existence of an argument can also be shown: either by simply
> mentioning the argument, or by using the SKIP particle as as
> replacement for an unmentioned (dropped) but existing argument.
>
> OTOH, all particles are optional, so it's usually up to the listener
> to infer the precise meaning. :-)))
>
> **Henrik

Reply