Re: active vs. semantic marking languages (was: Re: Noun tense)

On Wednesday 24 July 2002 04:41, Daniel Andreasson Vpc wrote:
> Peter Clark wrote:
> > Because Enamyn is an active-case language, it
> > would mark both as agents in the case of a verb > like "meet," assuming
> > that they planned on meeting > at such-and-such a time. If they just
> > bumped into each other on the street corner, then they would both > be
> > patients.
>
> That's not really an active language.
        Methinks you jumped the gun too quick; Enamyn _is_ an active language, it's
just that the above example is not sufficient to so demonstrate.

> What I mean by active language is a language
> which can mark the sole participant of an intransitive
> clause as either agent or patient depending on
> the semantics of the verb (more common) or the
> semantics of the NP (more rare). The arguments of
> transitive clauses are marked like any other regular
> accusative or ergative language: always agent for
> the "subject" and patient for the "object":
        Enamyn, like Lakhota, allows for a little play; "fall" would normally require
the patient, but if the agent was used instead, it would indicate volition on
the subject's part--e.g., he deliberately fell to attract the sympathy of
some pretty lass walking by.

> Languages which mark the participants of a clause
> differently regardless of it being intransitive, transitive
> or even ditransitive, is not in my (and I think most linguists out there)
> definition an active language, but something else.
        I am guessing that you are refering to the "meet" example above. This is
really a small exception, since the class of such verbs that can permit two
agents or two patients is really quite small. By far, Enamyn is an active
language as defined by your description above, as well as your paper (which I
read, btw :).
        :Peter