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

Peter Clark wrote:

> 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.
Oh no! How embarrassing! Or not... :)

Anyway. I've been bothered by this for some time now and your posting on Enamyn made
me think we should have some kind of terminology which distinguishes between
the different kinds of languages.

> 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.
Aha. Interesting. So in Enamyn, like in Lakhota, does
it suffice if the argument in some way performs, instigates
or effects the event or does he need to be in control to
be marked as agent?

What I'm getting at is that predicates like sneeze and
cough and the like aren't actually controlled, but in some
languages (like in Lakhota) they mark their argument as
agent.

(And that deliberately falling thing might not be the best way to get a girl to
like you. Unless of course, you are
looking for the mother/nurse type. :D )

> I am guessing that you are refering to the "meet" example > above.
Well, partly that. But I'm thinking more of languages like
Matt Pearson's Tokana, and possibly Ebisedian and I'm
sure lots of other langs I've forgotten/don't know of.

> 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 :).
Hehe. ::blush::  :) And if you read it, then you know that I'm
very interested in exceptions to the otherwise regular
marking.

||| daniel

Reply