Re: Trigger Systems (was Re: Book on constructive linguistics)

David Peterson wrote:
> I decided to take a look at the conlang wikibook, and came across
> an article about trigger systems.  I wrote a post on the discussion
> page about how I don't believe they actually exist in natural
> languages--
> at least, not as they exist in people's conlangs (such as my own, X).
> This is the post:  *(with snips)*
>
> Not meaning to rock the boat, but trigger systems, as they're
> explained here, don't actually exist in natural languages. I think
> they only exist as conlangs, actually (I have one too). The trigger
> systems of Austronesia don't actually seem to be anything more than
> languages with multiple passive formation and applicativization
> strategies.
As you may recall from past discussions, this is pretty much my view. Or
call them "focus systems" -- after all, the English (or other) passive is
simply a way of shifting focus from Agent/etc. to Patient, and Philippine
langs. merely go several steps further, being able to "passivize" many of
the constituents in a sentence (as you do in your English examples)--
> It would be something like the following:
>
> English:
>
> Direct Object Passive: I ate a hamburger. -> A hamburger eat-PASS1 by
> me.
> Indirect Object Passive: I gave you a flower. -> You give-PASS2 a
> flower by me.
> Prepositional Object Passive: I walked into a store. -> A store walk-
> PASS3 by me. (Prepositional information lost.)
>>
-------------------------
> To suggest that trigger languages, as they're described, do not exist
> naturally.
I often suspect it's simply a terminological dispute-- Passives, Focus,
Trigger-- sama-sama. Use of the "trigger" term in AN/Philippine linguistics
is of rather recent origin, I think, and not widely used.

Replies