Re: Ergativity Question

--- In conlang@yahoogroups.com, Trebor Jung <treborjung@F...> wrote:
> Caleb wrote: "Active voice: Subject = Agent(required), Object =
Patient(may
> or may not be present) [...] Antipassive voice: The oppsosite of passive,
> and thus the same as active."
>
> I thought that "active voice" means that the subject (agent) *and* object
> (patient) are required, and "antipassive voice" means that the object
> (patient) is optional.

I believe you are right. If you'll notice in my post, I prefixed that
statement with this one:

> I was (apparrently incorrectly) viewing voices like this
Just before that, I posted my new undersatnding of voices (if I understand
Thomas Wier):

> So if I'm understanding you correctly, then with an
> originally transitive verb:
>
> Active Voice: Agent (required), Patient (required)
> Passive Voice: Agent (optional, oblique), Patient (required)
> Antipassive Voice: Agent (required), Patient (optional, oblique)
Which is what you just said.

Since Akathanu avoids the whole question of transitivity and required
arguments, voice would also seem to not be an important (or even existant?)
concept. At least not in the traditional sense of the word. Maybe something
more like Tagalog's Objective and Agentive voices.

..........
Are you ready for some real weirdness? As I've mentioned elsewhere, Akathanu
is noun-centric. To say that "I do something", I would say "I (am) doer
of-something." This leads me to a stunning conclusion:

In Akathanu, nouns have a property which is, in some sense, akin to the
"voice" of a verb.

Let's take an example that's fairly easily understood in English. We'll
start with the gerund (noun) "employing" (or "act-of-employing" if you
prefer). Using no "voice" markers, we could say:

"It (be) act-of-employing" = It is the act of employing. = It is employment.

Adding an "agent-of-" voice marker (and changing the pronoun) makes this:

"He (be) agent-of-employing." = He is an employer. = He is employing
(someone).

Adding a "patient-of-" voice marker makes this:

"He (be) patient-of-employing." = He is an employee. = He is employed.

So I would say that whatever this voice-like feature is, something similar
to it can be seen in English nouns with the -er/-ee relationship.
Employer/employee, mentor/mentee, &c... Problem is that in English, I think
only conscious beings can recieve the -ee morpheme. Another problem is
that -ee tends to mark a more beneficiary or recipient role, rather than a
patient role (for example, granter/grantee, awarder/awardee).

~Caleb