Re: Active languages, part 2

Hallo!

Carsten Becker wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I've got again several questions on active languages. Thanks
> for all the answers in part 1, but I haven't been able to
> read them all yet because I have just returned yesterday
> afternoon.
>
> * In Daniel Andréasson's thesis _Active Languages_, which I
> read during my week off, I had a problem understanding what
> head-marking exactly means. He writes (p. 15f.):
>
> [quote snup]
>
> * According to Andréasson, active languages rather tend to
> mark the possessee instead of the possessor, or did I get
> that wrong? This would be called Construct Case then,
> wouldn't it?
I think what Daniel addresses is that most active languages mark
noun-verb relations on the verb.  I. e., the noun has no case
marker, but the verb has agreement markers for agent and patient.
However, languages which do that also tend to mark possession
on the possessee (usually by the means of possessive affixes,
which are often the same as the verb agreement/ pronominal
affixes).

> * Another point is that I decided to make TarÅ>anian split-S,
> I just have not decided yet whether the split should be
> based on control, Performance/Effect/Instigation (he calls
> it P/E/I for short) or event. I might ask about this again,
> because I have not yet completely understood that. I must
> read again the examples he gave. However, I saw in some
> examples he gave (IIRC) and also in Jörg Rhiemeier's
> examples of Old Albic that case usually seems to be marked
> on the verb instead of the NP. Is that also a common
> feature? I remember Basque to act similarly, though Basque
> is of course an ergative language, I know that. Or are that
> just peculiarities and I can go on marking case on NPs? Or
> do verbs just agree with nouns in case?
You can of course mark case on NPs.  Actually, Old Albic marks
both case on the NP and verb agreement, and Georgian and Basque
do the same.

> * Another feature of active languages seems that adjectives
> are handled like stative verbs. Or is that just the case in
> languages with the split being based on event/state?
I don't think *all* active languages treat adjectives like verbs,
but when they do, they are stative verbs, i. e. their single
argument is marked as patient, not agent.  Surely, verbs such
as `to be big' or `to be red' are stative.  Treating them as
active verbs seems rather perverse to me.

> * What if the verb only needs to agree in case with the
> topic-NP? Wouldn't that be similar to triggering? If yes,
> this is *not* what I want to do.
It would indeed at least look similar to triggering.

> * Any ideas what verbs could inflect for besides person and
> mode?
Tense, aspect, evidentiality, aktionsart (inchoative, iterative,
semelfactive, etc. p. p.), version (agent-oriented, patient-oriented,
etc.); there are probably even more categories.

>       I have 3 different verb endings due to sound changes
> but I don't know what to do with them. Anyway, how came
> inflection for person into life?
Probably from pronouns agglutinated to the verb, I'd say.

Greetings,

Jörg.