Jesse Bangs wrote:
> > I - Actor of a volitional transitive verb
> > II - object of a volitional transitive verb
> > III - actor of an active intransitive verb
> > IV - actor of an inactive intransitive verb
How do you define "active" and "inactive"? Is it "active" vs. "stative"?
Or "volitional" vs. "non-volitional"? Or "control" vs. "non-control"?
Or something else / a combination? That's the thing I'm most interested
in regarding active langs.
> > Conceivably II and III could spontaneously fall together forming a sort
> > of mixed ergative-active system, and if it stayed that way it wouldn't
> > be too exceptional.
Nik Taylor:
> Actually it would still be prety exceptional.
Yes, and it would still be a kind of *anti*-active system.
Original system:
He.I kills you.II
He.III runs.
He.IV sleeps.
New system:
He.I kills you.II/III
He.II/III runs.
He.IV sleeps.
> > The resulting system would be like the one shown above.
> Hmm, conceivable, but I wonder if it wouldn't change to become more
> conventional, perhaps actor of an inactive intransitive might change to
> take II/III, making it a simple ergative system.
Yes, that would be more natural. Another idea which is more according
to the semantics is to let cases II and IV fall together. This would
make it a normal active system. Why there still would be a difference
between I (transitive agent) and III (intransitive agent) is another
question. Perhaps there is just a phonological difference explained
by e.g. a transitive marker on case I.
Daniel