jesse stephen bangs wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Oct 2000, Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
>
[...]
>
> > Why that way? The pattern I proposed is semantically absolutely
> > implausible, and I never intended it to be anything else than a joke.
> > I think it is a bad idea to use in a fictional natlang (i.e. in a
> > language
> > designed to represent a language that evolved naturally in a fictional
> > world) because it is implausible.
> >
> > Jörg.
>
> Ba nu!* I think this could happen naturally if it were the result of a
> phonetic merger of two categories. Perhaps if the original were an active
> system with the following categories:
>
> 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
Which is not implausible at all.
> 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. But after that a sound change might combine I and
> IV--something that wouldn't make sense semantically but could be
> phonologically motivated. The resulting system would be like the one
> shown above.
>
> Okay, so that's still not too plausible, but it's not impossible.
Very true. I have overlooked that possibility.
Bizarre, but possible.
Jörg.