Re: passivization/antipassivization

salut_vous_autre@HOTMAIL.COM wrote:
<<
I’ve read that the direct object becomes a complement because it is the
central argument of the ergative languages
 >>

The direct object isn't the central argument of an ergative language:
the absolutive argument is.  That argument can be a direct object or
the subject of an intransitive verb.

I'm sorry, but I couldn't make much sense of your diagrams.
Maybe that's because it's late.

Anyway, if you forget the semantics, passivization and antipassivization
are exactly the same.  It goes like this:

(1) In any sentence with a transitive verb (and where each argument is
marked), one will be the marked NP, and one will be unmarked.
(2) To (anti)passivize a sentence, the marked NP becomes unmarked,
and the marked NP is demoted to an oblique CP.

This means two different things, though, depending on whether you're
talking about an active language or an ergative language.  An active
language you know.  In an ergative language, the direct object is
marked with the unmarked case.  Thus, it's demoted and relegated
to a CP position.  The marked argument is the subject.  It's now
allowed to be in the unmarked case an occupy the position of the
unmarked argument.  Now what you have is an intransitive verb
with an oblique complement.

That's it.  There's more to it, though, as to the different ways this
process can be realized.  For a summary, go here:

http://dedalvs.free.fr/notes.html#ergativity

-David
*******************************************************************
"sunly eleSkarez ygralleryf ydZZixelje je ox2mejze."
"No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn."

-Jim Morrison

http://dedalvs.free.fr/