Re: Comments? Applicative and Noun Incorporation

In a message dated 04/12/02 8:39:15 AM, AL260@AOL.COM writes:

<< (oh, and it's split-ergative: nouns take ergative-absolutive marking,
pronouns take nominative-accusative marking). >>

    !??!?!  What prompted this?

    Anyway, if I followed, the suffix doesn't seem like an applicative so
much as an indicator that the direct object has been incorporated, and the
old indirect object promoted.  And the one process that promotes objects is
passive.  (We just had an assignment on this; confusing.)  Because,
technically you are adding an argument, but you're also losing one.  And it
further complicates matters that there's a difference in aspect between the
two.  Or maybe I'm missing it...
    My professor gave us the sentence that her six year-old son said, "Don't
hair-dry me", as opposed to "Don't dry my hair".  This was described as
applicative.  Is that what's going on here?

-David

"fawiT, Gug&g, tSagZil-a-Gariz, waj min DidZejsat wazid..."
"Soft, driven, slow and mad, like some new language..."
                    -Jim Morrison

Reply