> Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
> > Hallo!
> >
> > On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 19:58:26 +0000, R A Brown wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> >>Even so, I find his [Morneau's]use of 'focus' unhelpful in that it already
> has
> >>another linguistic use.
> >
> >
> > Yes. "Focus", as it is usually understood in linguistics, has nothing to
> do
> > with either cases or semantic roles. It is a *pragmatic* cateogory.
> > (There is a second meaning of "focus", though. In Austronesian
> linguistics,
> > the word is sometimes used for a noun case whose semantic function is
> marked
> > on the verb.
>
> I know - what I think is best called the 'subject' - and IMO that the
> use of 'focus' by some in Austronesian linguistics is also unhelpful (as
> is IMO the 'trigger' terminology as well), but we've discussed this many
> times before on this list.
>
> > But that isn't what Morneau means, either.)
>
> It certainly isn't. He's added a a third use of the term.
>
> >
> >>Personally, i think it can (and does) cause confusion to use 'case' to
> >>denote both surface, grammatical features and semantic roles. Although
> >>there is some correspondence between the two, it is very far from being
> >>identical.
> >
> >
> > Very much so. In most languages, the connection between grammatical case
> > and semantic role is at best a very loose one.
>
> Amen.
>
> >
> >>As I said, I agree with you that Rye is using labels wrongly in
> >>
http://www.xibalba.demon.co.uk/jbr/ranto/r.html
> >>
> >>His error IMO is his apparent 1 to 1 mapping of grammatical case to
> >>semantic role, e.g. that the subject of a transitive verb is always the
> >>patient - it ain't.
> >
> >
> > AND what is especially wrong in Rye's article is to call an intransitive
> > subject an "experiencer". Intransitive subjects can be just about
> > anything, and experiencers are not typically intransitive subjects
> > - the archetypical experiencer is the subject of a verb of perception
> > or emotion; some of these verbs are intransitive, others not.
>
> I agree on all points. There is actually a lot one could criticize on
> the page, but I don't think it's worth wasting time or bandwidth on it.
>
> > Also, a transitive subject isn't always an agent.
> >
> > Unfortunately, I have seen Rye's "nonstandard" terminology on many
> webpages,
> > usually ones describing ergative or other non-accusative conlangs.
> > If I could have $100 for each repetition of this mistake ...
>
> Quite so - one of the banes of the Internet. Of course in the 'old days'
> of the printed text, errors did get copied unquestioningly, but it
> happened at a slower pace.
>
> >
> >>BTW - Rick Morneau says "All verbs have a patient, whether stated or
> >>implied." Is that in fact true?
> >>
> >>What is the patient of the following
> >>LATIN SPANISH ESPERANTO ENGLISH
> >>pluit llueve pluvas it's raining
> >>niuit nieva neghas it's snowing
> >>
> >>Of the languages above, only English gives the verb a grammatical
> >>subject - the dummy 'it'. What is the patient implied in those and
> >>similar verbs?
> >
> > There is none.
>
> That's what I thought.
> ==================================
>
> MorphemeAddict@WMCONNECT.COM wrote:
> > In a message dated 1/29/2007 2:11:07 PM Central Standard Time,
> > ray@CAROLANDRAY.PLUS.COM writes:
> >
> >
> >
> >>What is the patient of the following
> >>LATIN SPANISH ESPERANTO ENGLISH
> >>pluit llueve pluvas it's raining
> >>niuit nieva neghas it's snowing
> >>
> >
> > In English cases similar to this RAM has mentioned verbs that are
> inherently
> > anti-passive (e.g., "shout"). I believe he would say that these
> verbs are
> > inherently middle-voice.
>
> I fail to see how they can be 'middle', at least in the normal use of
> the term 'middle'. In fact I've found where RAM does deal with such
> verbs; of them he says:
> {quote}
> Note that verbs in this class can be either static or dynamic. Also note
> that, since these verbs describe states or changes of state, they have
> an _implied_ patient which is obvious from the context (i.e. the local
> environment or current situation). In effect, English uses the pronoun
> "it" to represent the implied patient.
> {/quote}
>
> IMHO the last sentence smacks horribly of the "English relex" mentality
> and in any case the vague 'implied patient which is obvious from the
> context' seems to me like forcing a category of verbs to behave in
> accordance with a preconceived general theory.
>
> I have no preconceived general theory and I am not at all persuaded that
> all verbs must have a patient.
>
> --
> Ray
> ==================================
> ray@carolandray.plus.com
>
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
> ==================================
> Nid rhy hen neb i ddysgu.
> There's none too old to learn.
> [WELSH PROVERB}
>