Re: Non-accusative, non-ergative, non-active

John Cowan a mitangu:

"""""""""""
> The door is an device that is an inalienable attribute of the house
Why inalienable?  Barring major (and very recently developed) surgery,
giving someone a new mouth is not possible, but changing the door to a
house is a relatively straightforward operation, unless indeed the
door is a mere opening without a closeable portion.
""""""""""
(DISCLAIMER: This post is written while watching the 14 juillet défilé On
TV, so please refrain from bazookaing back!!! :-)

Indeed, this all depends on what you refer to as a "door" and that was
precisely why I made a silly list of items à la Prévert: An opening, a lid
(door pannel/board), a duct (doorway, camel needle-eye). I was referring to
the concept combining these items into an arch-sem-whatever-eme I believe is
fairly well known among all sesshaftigen populations as being part of an
accessible building.

My point was that, depending what part of this "door" and what use thereof
you refer to, the nature of the "subject" and "object" of the open state or
opening operation will greatly differ--you lojbanist might envision things
in that way too(?) ;-). Further, I suggested that the nature of the
"objects" of "fill" and "full" is different according to a trivial
quality/quantity distinction that is dealt with with two different roots in
some natlangs. Finally, I pointed out that some natlangs envision "open",
"broken" or "full" as prospective (final) states, other ones as
retrospective (resulting) states, and some as states outside any process.
Then there is what is called "direction de la relation active" and "relation
attributive" in my humble collection of lingobooks (by Nyckeers, Pottier &
al.--very certainly famously unknown in the US :-). These relation are exo-,
endo-, or a-tropic and depend on the physical nature of the actors
("applied", "inalienable", "parts of", etc.) as I rabitted it on on this
list in many instances precedent--but I keep rabitting it on because I
believe that this breakdown may perhaps help solving a few recurring issues
discussed on this list.

So, then, to sum it all up: I meant to write that the nature of open,
opening, opened, broken, breaking, filled, filling, full, etc., actors and
the respective voices, cases, aspects etc., that they conjure up in
different natlangs may simply depend on very practical details about door
hinges and bucket handles knotted up with each other into a "matrix of
experience"--that I doubt anyone could sort out within the next eons (I have
the feeling that Morneau's not unlikely "lexical breakdown" endeavours may
lead him to re-write the Webster :-). One such detail would be the fact that
door is a "part_of_building". That's what I (certainly mis-)called
"inalienability". Clothes may be "inalienable" in some natlangs like Ainu
but even Ainu know that they aren't part of the human body. Actually, I have
noticed that verbs and actors dealing with clothes work in another
interesting way (applied+wrapping items).

Mathias