|From:||Vasiliy Chernov <bc_@...>|
|Date:||Friday, September 28, 2001, 18:32|
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.
>This is the case where ergative is used not just for the A-functionargument
>of an active predicate, but when it is also used for the oblique reference
>to the demoted A-function argument in the passive.
How do you measure demotedness?
Actually, I meant *English*. How can you tell the English _by_ from an
>> My father builds (antipassive) houses.
>> How do you decline such an analysis?
>Antipassives are difficult to express in English since English doesn't have
>an antipassive. Consider:
>(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 simply Oblique?
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... :)
>I think I read somewhere that while Tagalog is syntactically ergative that
>its argument expression uses a trigger mechanism. I may be completelywrong
>on this however.
Interesting, and more like being the case...
>> Typically, the descriptions went on as follows: "T. has normal
>> active voice;
>> curiously, it also has several passives; moreover, it uses its passives
>> 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 byyou')".
>> Do you see where I'm pointing? Reminds of something, doesn't it?
>> This is why I ask about the criteria. How do they draw the distinction
>> between 'ergative vs. antipassive' and 'passive vs. active'?
>I don't know enough about Tagalog to follow this.
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