Re: THEORY: Re : THEORY: Connolly: Interpreting ergative sentences
|From:||Ed Heil <edheil@...>|
|Date:||Sunday, July 18, 1999, 3:30|
Ed Heil ------------------------------- email@example.com
"Facts are meaningless! You can use facts to prove anything
that's even _remotely_ true!" -- Homer Simpson
From Http://Members.Aol.Com/Lassailly/Tunuframe.Html wrote:
> Dans un courrier dat=E9 du 16/07/99 21:19:39 , Lars a =E9crit :
> > So please, caution! And take due note of what has been discovered
> > about *living* ergative languages. You can't hope to understand the
> > dead ones without them.
> > =20
> > Leo
> sumerians did not have camels ;-)
> otherwise an interesting summing up of that question.
> except - if i may - i still can't get why the
> base would be "distributed", which already
> implies an active, distributing agent and is still
> an IE "passivization" reflex (except if the -ed affix
> were meant to refer to the perfect aspect).
> the base should be - i humbly think - "to distribute" :
> *the camels distribute.
> *the fabric tears.
> the soup cooks.
> and sumerian has transitive verbs too.
I think that the author may have meant the English simple past
"distributed," not the English perfect passive participle
"distributed," though I confess in the example he gave it's ambiguous.