Re: Trigger language?
|From:||Tim May <butsuri@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, January 29, 2003, 21:56|
Christophe Grandsire wrote at 2003-01-17 21:23:24 (+0100)
> En réponse à Daniel Andreasson Vpc-Work <daniel.andreasson@...>:
> > Or better yet, an actual Guaraní (fluid-S!) example:
> > karú (AGT) 'to have lunch or supper, or dine' --> active
> > karú (PAT) 'to be a glutton' --> stative
> Strangely enough, I would have thought that the meanings would be
> opposite. I'd feel that being a glutton demands more activity than
> simply having lunch or dinner ;))) . I like when languages make
> distinctions in a way that just looks wrong to me ;)))) .
I thought about replying to this before, but I didn't, and then I
forgot about it. I remember reading this example in Daniel's thesis,
and I think I understand the logic of the distinction. Daniel can
perhaps correct me if I am wrong.
The point, here, is that the active/stative distinction is not a
matter of how much activity is involved, but rather whether the
condition is seen as an action, something _done_ (whether voluntarily
or not) or as a state, something which the subject _is_, a quality
which they _have_. It's similar, I think, to an aspectual
So with agentive marking, karú means to perform the act of dining,
wheras with patientive marking it means to have the property of being
predisposed to dine.
That, at least, is my interpretation - I certainly don't speak