Re: Subject/Object participles

Logan Kearsley wrote:
> Is there any language that distinguishes subject-oriented vs.
> object-oriented participles separately from past/present/future/etc.?
Yes - see below, for example.

[snip]

> Descriptive examples-
> Consider the English phrases "the running man" and "the hammered
> nail". "The running man" corresponds to the sentence "the man runs",
> with 'man' as the subject. "The hammered nail", on the other hand, has
> nail as the object of 'hammer'. As far as I can tell, present
> participles in English are always subject-oriented, while past
> participles are always object oriented,
This is true of the so-called "present participle" which is really
imperfective participle; but it is true of "past participle" _only_ if
the verb is transitive, in which case it is a perfect passive
participle. If, however, the verb is intransitive then the "past
participle" is a perfect _active_ participle, i.e. is
"subject-oriented", e.g.
'our departed friends' corresponds to 'our friends have departed'.

This was situation in Vulgar Latin and is the origin of the distinction
observed in most (but not modern Spanish) Romance langs, cf. French:
il est venue <-- *(ille) est venutus = he is having-come (cf. Esperanto
'li estas venita')
but:
il a lit le livre <-- (ille) habet lectum illum librum = he has the read
(having been read) book.

You will notice the lack of asterisk before the second example because
this construction, which was obviously commonplace in Vulgar Latin, is
also attested to a limited extent in the Classical language.
====================================

Jim Henry wrote:
 > On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 8:24 PM, Logan Kearsley
<chronosurfer@...> wrote:
[snip]
 >>. ......But one could just as well have
 >> a system that marks the tense/aspect/etc. of a participle separately
 >> from whether the thing it modifies is a subject or object. So, what
 >> languages do that, and how? And is it done in natural languages, or
 >> just conlangs?
 >
 > Esperanto:
 >
 > la kuranta viro = the running man
 > la martelata najlo = the being-hammered nail
 >
 > with -int and -ont for past and future active/subject participles,
 > and -it and -ot for past and future passive/subject participles.
 >
 > I would guess Ido and some other close imitators of Esperanto
 > have the same or a similar system.

Ido certainly does and, indeed, extends this also to the infinitive,
having infinitives -ar, -ir and -or for so-called present, past and
future. I say "so-called' because, like the participles, these
distinctions denote aspect rather than time

[snip]
 >
 > In fact, I think Esperanto distinguishes tense in its verb
 > system and aspect in its participle system; though the
 > participles are often glossed or introduced as past,
 > present and future,

I agree.

But it's not only in conlangs like Esperanto, Ido etc where one finds
participles denoting  _aspect_ as well as voice (i.e. 'subject or object
orientation'). In ancient Greek, for example, one finds a very rich
system. Using as an example the verb _luein_ (λύειν) "to free, loosen" :

Active ('subject-oriented')
imperfective (present): luo:n
perfective (aorist): lusa:s
perfect: leluko:s
futuritive: luso:n

Medio-passive (either 'reflexive-oriented' or 'object-oriented)
imperfective (present): luomenos
perfect: lelumenos

Middle ('reflexive-oriented')
perfective (aorist): lusamenos
futuritive: lusomenos

Passive ('object-oriented)
perfective (aorist): lutheis
futuritive: luthe:somenos


(I'm sure these better term than 'futuritive', but I can't recall what
it is).

I'm sure Turkish, which makes extensive use of participles where we
would use clauses in English, has a rich system of participles which
show aspect as well as voice.


--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
Frustra fit per plura quod potest
fieri per pauciora.
[William of Ockham]



--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
Frustra fit per plura quod potest
fieri per pauciora.
[William of Ockham]

Reply