|From:||Vasiliy Chernov <bc_@...>|
|Date:||Friday, September 28, 2001, 19:22|
On Fri, 28 Sep 2001 14:51:27 -0400, The Gray Wizard <dbell@...>
>> From: Vasiliy Chernov
>> On Fri, 28 Sep 2001 13:31:29 -0400, The Gray Wizard<dbell@...>
>> >> The house (P, abs) was built by my grandfather (erg.). The
>> house (S, abs)
>> >> will stand for long.
>> >> No?
>> >This is the case where ergative is used not just for the A-function
>> >of an active predicate, but when it is also used for the oblique
>> >to the demoted A-function argument in the passive.
>> How do you measure demotedness?
>Passive operators typically have the semantic effect of giving topical
>prominence to the Patient thus "demoting" the Agent which may beunexpressed
>or obliquely referenced.
So, compatibility with topicalization is a possible criterion?
(I'm not objecting, just collecting candidate criteria)
I think in Russian this is only a tendency; in principle, agents of
passives can indeed be topicalized.
>> >(1) My father-ERG build-ACT houses-ABS "My father builds houses"
>> >(2) My father-ABS build-ANTIP (houses-DAT) "My father builds, (houses)"
>> How do you identify the case of _houses_ as Dative and not simplyOblique?
>> The construction in (2) does look superficialy accusative, and I
>> guess real
>> verbal forms don't have the labels 'Active' and 'Antipassive', red on
>> yellow, all caps... :)
>Of course I should have said simply Oblique. I was influenced by myconlang
>which uses the dative in this case.
That is, you already know you have no accusatives ;) So what if you don't?
>> >> Typically, the descriptions went on as follows: "T. has normal
>> >> active voice;
>> >> curiously, it also has several passives; moreover, it uses itspassives
>> >> more often than its active voice; BTW, imperative sentences
>> are construed
>> >> using one of the passives (e. g. 'drink it' as 'let it be drunk by
>> My point wasn't about Tagalog; just imagine you're reading a description
>> like the above... I haven't invented it myself, just compressed to one
>I still have insufficient information to follow this. In what way does
>having multiple passives further confuse the distinction between 'ergative
>vs. antipassive' and 'passive vs. active'?
Not multiple passives (though they do complicate the case, I think);
rather, the fact that 'active' (= accusative) isn't the default option.