Agency/Instrumentality (was RE: Ergative?)

> From: The Gray Wizard
>
> Interestingly, I know of at least one ergative language, Dyirbal, which
> conflates the ergative and the instrumental (this may be the case for
> Warrgamay as well, but I'm not sure).  I toyed with this idea for my
> principal conlang, amman iar, before discarding it and
> resurrected the idea
> for a second and now dormant if not defunct conlang, forendar.  It can
> provide for some interesting semantics around the nature of "agency"  Did
> the boy kill the jabberwocky or did the sword kill it?  In the end, I
> decided, at least for amman iar, that "Swords don't kill, people
> do."   That
> of course is a concultural decision with which I don't personally agree.
> Funny how a conlang/conculture can violate even its creator's belief
> systems.

After writing this, I realized that amman iar still retains some of the
semantic ambiguity between agency and instrumentality.  This can been seen
in its passive forms.  The amman iar passive gives topical prominence to the
Patient while leaving the Agent either unexpressed or only obliquely
referenced.  When the agent is explicitly expressed it is expressed
instrumentally.

1) The jabberwock was killed by the boy.
        eleth ini chabiruag ir adhanissos ernin ugoraen

The jabberwock was killed by the boy
\t eleth             ini            chabiruag
\m el-        -eth   in         i   chabiruag  i
\g assertive- -past  agt.to.pat the jabberwock the
\p mood-      -tense ptp        det n          det
\x did               agt.to.pat the jabberwock the

\t ir  adhanissos
\m i   adh    =an   =is    -os
\g the person =masc =small -by
\p det qty    =gnd  =dim   -instr
\x the by.boy

\t ernin ugoraen
\m er-  en-    -in      ur-  coiro -ae      -n
\g do-  cause- -passive not- live  -agt/pat -actn/proc
\p agt- caus-  -voice   neg- v     -val     -vc
\x kill

Note the similarities between the example above in which the agent is
expressed instrumentally and the following in which an instrument is
expressed obliquely, but the agent is implied. amman iar uses the
instrumental case for both of these examples and thus can be said to make
only a subtle distinction between agency and instrumentality.

2) The jabberwock was killed with a sword.
        eleth ini chabiruag megillos ernin ugoraen

The jabberwock was killed with a sword.
\t eleth             in         i   chabiruag
\m el-        -eth   in         i   chabiruag
\g assertive- -past  agt.to.pat the jabberwock
\p mood-      -tense ptp        det n
\x did               agt.to.pat the jabberwock

\t megillos
\m megil -os
\g sword -with
\p n     -instr
\x with.sword

\t ernin ugoraen
\m er-  en-    -in      ur-  coiro -ae      -n
\g do-  cause- -passive not- live  -agt/pat -actn/proc
\p agt- caus-  -voice   neg- v     -val     -vc
\x kill

Another interesting twist is seen in the following example where the
instrument has been incorporated (3), but unlike in English, the agent may
still be expressed (4).

3) A sword killed the jabberwock.
        megille eleth ini chabiruag eren ugoraen

4) A sword killed the jabberwock by the boy.
        megille eleth ini chabiruag ir adhanissos eren ugoraen

However, this (4) remains an active construction and differs from the
following (5) only in topicality.

5) The boy killed the jabberwock with a sword.
        ir adhanisse eleth ini chabiruag megillos eren ugoraen

Stay curious,
David

David E. Bell
The Gray Wizard
www.graywizard.net

elivas en ishron ordelmar cotronian
Wisdom begins in wonder.