Re: Active languages

Hi!

Jeffrey Jones <jsjonesmiami@...> writes:
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 13:32:00 +0200, Henrik Theiling <theiling@...>
> wrote:
> > 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?
I understand 'deletion' to be the complete removal of an argument from
the verb's argument frame, while 'dropping' would simply mean that an
argument is not mentioned, while semantically still present.

E.g. subjects in English usually cannot simply be dropped, so you need
a pronoun although it is clear what you mean (this is in contrast to
pro-drop langs like Chinese etc.).  Still, colloquial language allows
utterances like:

  'Dunno'

where written language would require a subject:

  'I don't know.'

In 'dunno', the subject is dropped, but not deleted, it is inferred by
the listener.  However, a passive construction would delete it
completely from the verb's argument structure:

  'It is not known.'

Here, the person who does not know is not only unmentioned, but there
is no specific slot for that argument of the verb to be mentioned.

In Qthyn|gai, I distinguish this by calling one the 'semantical
valence' and the other the 'syntactical valence'.  (But since I'm not
a linguist, that's just an intuitive naming I made up that may be a
total misnomer to linguists. I hope not, but if so, I will change
that...)  Qthyn|gai predicates are (head-)marked for both of these
valences and *additional* to that, the argument structure may be
changed by passive, antipassive, and applicative suffixes for any
of its numerous cases. :-)

**Henrik