Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

[despammed] Re: Antipassive

From:Garth Wallace <gwalla@...>
Date:Saturday, January 18, 2003, 10:53
Christophe Grandsire wrote:
> En réponse à Jake X <starvingpoet@...>: > > >>>Antipassive: S(u)- >> >>What is the function of this voice? >> > > > Mike's explanation is extremely good, but a bit complicated if you don't have a > good understanding of ergative languages (damn, I'd have had difficulties to > understand it if I didn't know what the antipassive was! ;))) ). So I'm only > gonna give a simple explanation. For the full story, refer to Mike's post. > > You know what the passive is in English: it's a way to convert transitive verbs > into intransitive verbs, with the patient (object) suddenly becoming subject of > the new intransitive form, and the original agent (subject) not being expressed > at all (or optionally with a prepositional phrase using "by"). The antipassive > is the ergative languages' equivalent: it's a way to convert transitive verbs > into intransitive ones. But in this case, it's the agent which becomes subject > of the new intransitive form (in ergative languages, the subject of an > intransitive verb is treated like the *object* (patient) of a transitive verb, > and the agent is treated separately, so you could argue that the real "subject" > of a transitive verb is actually the patient), while the patient is not > expressed at all, or only obliquely using whatever system the language has (the > equivalent of an English preposition). If you refer to the posts earlier today > about language types, compare accusative languages and ergative languages and > compare the passive of accusative languages and the antipassive of ergative > languages, you'll see that they parallel each other exactly :) .
Hmm. So, would a Split-S language have a passive construction for some transitive verbs and an antipassive for others? Or both? Would Fluid-S languages have one, both, or neither?