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

Quoting Daniel Andreasson Vpc <daniel.andreasson@...>:

> 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. At least not in
> the sense usually used on this list.
[snip]

> In short. Active languages are the third alternative
> in the accusative-ergative-active triad. Simplified
> examples:
>
> Nominative: I-nom eat.
> Ergative: I-abs eat.
> Active: I-agt eat.  --- I-pat sleep.
>
> The purely semantic marking languages are of a
> whole other kind.
[snip]

> So what do people think? Does anyone but me even care?
"Active" is a kinda old-fashioned way to describe these kinds of
languages.  Nowadays, it's more usual to call them "split-S", when
certain Ns always take certain case agreement, and you just have
to know which it is, or "fluid-S", where some verbs may take take
either patient or agent marking depending on the context of the
sentence.  Dixon wrote at length about this in _Ergativity_
(Ch. 4:  "Types of Split System").

=====================================================================
Thomas Wier          "...koruphàs hetéras hetére:isi prosápto:n /
Dept. of Linguistics  mú:tho:n mè: teléein atrapòn mían..."
University of Chicago "To join together diverse peaks of thought /
1010 E. 59th Street   and not complete one road that has no turn"
Chicago, IL 60637     Empedocles, _On Nature_, on speculative thinkers