Re: Active, Was: Help with grammar terms

Fri, 14 Jan 2000 01:18:23 +0100 daniel andreasson wrote:

>It sounds a lot like the 'inverse' construction. This was
>discussed some months ago on this list.
>
>When the natural hierarchy of the language is broken,
>a special form of the verb or noun is used. Example:
>Hierarchy: 1p > 2p > 3p
>
>1p acts on 2p > 'direct' form
>
>I hit-DIR you = 'I hit you'
>
>2p acts on 1p > 'inverse' form, because it breaks the hierarchy.
>
>I hit-INV you = 'You hit me'
>
Yes, there is something in common... But the system I meant involves a
hierarchy of classes, not persons. And I'm sure it was treated as an
example of *active*.

I can recall some more details that might help.

The article (in Russian) discussed the remnants of *active* that can be
found in Proto-Indo-European. It quoted some source in English about some
Amerind language, which was adduced as an example of active.

But mostly it dealt with Hettan. I don't remember all details, but it was
argued that Hettan neuter nouns are similar to inactive, and epicene nouns
(corresponding to masc. and fem. in other IE tongues), to active.

It was maintained that Hettan neutra must be replaced in certain contexts
with derivatives having the suffix -ant- (resembling the active participle
suffix), and that the gender of main actants affects the choice of the
verb's conjugation.

The situation in Hettan was compared with what the author cited as *active*,
and it was claimed that they are basically similar.

Does anybody remember the rules of Hettan syntax?

Basilius,
hoping that even if he's seeing things, the above still may be fruitful for
conlanging