Re: Stative passive

--- Carsten Becker <post@...>
wrote:

> A second question: In German, we've got a
> "Vorgangspassiv"
> (actional/active?! passive) and a
> "Zustandspassiv" (stative passive). That's
> the difference between "The door is closed"
> (done by somebody) and "The door
> is closed" (state of being). Is it really
> necessary to think about this in
> conlanging or is one passive enough to express
> both.
Gods and Saints preserve us! Two passives
enough!? What would the world be like without
sacrificial passive and the accidental passive?
Not to mention the strange beastie, the
sacrificial medio-passive!? ;)

Clearly English gets by with the one. Though I
would not call something "stative passive" -
passive hints to me at agents and patients and
all that, while stative has nothing to do actors
or recipients of actions.

> And what about "The soup cooks"? It does not
> cook itself, and it is not
> cooked by anyone, it just cooks.
Middle. Talarian gets away with just active and
middle; Kerno has active, passive and impersonal.
Not sure about Queranarran yet except that it has
active, stative and coupling verbs (copulas, I
guess, other than be).

> Because I'm working on a trigger language
> at the moment (oh wonder! but hey, it was me
> who started the
> trigger-language-boom again, actually!):
I don't know about trigger systems.

> There wouldn't be an agent here,
> right?
I guess the soup could be. It is doing the
action, after all.

Padraic.


=====
la cieurgeourea provoer mal trasfu ast meiyoer ke 'l andrext ben trasfu.


--

Ill Bethisad --
<http://www.geocities.com/elemtilas/ill_bethisad>


Come visit The World! --
<http://www.geocities.com/hawessos/>







.