Re: Antipassives
| From: | BP Jonsson <bpj@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Friday, July 18, 2003, 14:59 |
|---|
At 11:03 17.7.2003 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
>Randy LaPolla has argued convincingly (at least he convinced me :-) )
>that in Chinese the whole concept of "S, A, and P" makes no sense, that
>Chinese is neither accusative nor ergative nor active, and that case roles
>are assigned on a purely pragmatic basis.
Can you explain that in a little more detail, or give me the reference?
/BP 8^)
--
B.Philip Jonsson mailto:melrochX@melroch.se (delete X)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~__
A h-ammen ledin i phith! \ \
__ ____ ____ _____________ ____ __ __ __ / /
\ \/___ \\__ \ /___ _____/\ \\__ \\ \ \ \\ \ / /
/ / / / / \ / /Melroch\ \_/ // / / // / / /
/ /___/ /_ / /\ \ / /Gaestan ~\_ // /__/ // /__/ /
/_________//_/ \_\/ /Eowine __ / / \___/\_\\___/\_\
Gwaedhvenn Angeliniel\ \______/ /a/ /_h-adar Merthol naun
~~~~~~~~~Kuinondil~~~\________/~~\__/~~~Noolendur~~~~~~
|| Lenda lenda pellalenda pellatellenda kuivie aiya! ||
"A coincidence, as we say in Middle-Earth" (JRR Tolkien)
Reply