Re: What would you call this?

As I pointed out in my reply to Nik Taylor, I managed to mix things up in the
post below ...

The examples should be:

Yza eze reimazo
yza eze reim -azo
3f  3m  see  PAST
"She saw him"

Yza reimeizazo
yza reim     -eiz         -azo
3f  see      ANTIPASSIVE  PAST
"She saw"

Eze reimolazo
eze reim     -ol     -azo
3m  contact  PASSIVE PAST
"He was seen"

Quoting Andreas Johansson <andjo@...>:

> Quoting "Thomas R. Wier" <trwier@...>:
>
> > Well, only if it changes the relations of the verb.  Can you elide
> > arguments of the verb without so changing the grammatical relations?
> > If so, then this is no passive.
>
> This reminds me of a somewhat confused (on my part at least!) discussion
> of
> antipassives we had some time back.
>
> Anyway, since then Altaii has acquired two verb forms I label
> "passive"
> and "antipassive". The thing has rigid SOV syntax, so we get sentences
> like
> this:
>
>
> As seen, only WO tells us that _yza_ is subject and _eze_ object - _eze
> yza
> reimazo_ means "he saw her". Now, we can drop either argument, provided
> we
> supply the appropriate suffix on the verb:
>
>
> Now, my "gut feeling" is that neither of these suffixes is changing
> any
> valences - they're only telling which argument has got dropped, the
> other
> being found in its normal place. If so, I guess they shouldn't properly
> be
> called "passive" and "antipassive", altho' I'm at a loss as what else to
> call
> them.
>
> How would you analyze these?
>
>                                                          Andreas
>
> PS Altaii word of the day; Maralandzhinistaiz "neotraditionalism".
>