Re: THEORY: Active case-marking natlangs

Daniel wrote:

>Marcus wrote:
>
> > Only if you define "active" by the fact that the subject can change "case"
> > based on various parameters. If you define "active" by which cases are
> > used, then this is not wierd at all. And if you re-read what I wrote, that
> > is exactly how I am defining it. There are four proto-typical roles
> > (ignoring ditransitives and experiencers): Subject of a transitive (S),
> > object of a transitive (P), subject of an "active" verb (A), and subject
>of
> > a "stative" verb (O). (Defining "active" and "stative" is not easy, and
>I'm
> > not even going to try here since it is irrelevant.) Accusative languages
> > group these four roles as S/A/O (nom) vs P (acc). Ergative languages group
> > the roles as P/A/O (erg) vs S (abs). Active languages group them as S/A
> > (active) vs P/O (stative). Tokana and Nur-ellen pull S and A apart and
>have
> > a system like S1/A1 vs S2/A2 vs S3/A3 vs P/0. This is why I do not
>consider
> > them active. They are most certainly Split/Fluid-S; but Active is only a
> > subset of Split/Fluid-S.
>
>Wow, this is interesting! How come you've never said this before, or rather,
>how come you've never said it like this before? I think this is a very
>nice though-out distinction. For some reason, I've been stuck with S/A/P
>in my head. I've read about S/A/P/O (or similar) but never really thought
>about it. I really need to think about this.
I never said that to you before? Now I feel guilty, because this is more or
less the way Pam defined it for me  more than a year ago. (Her explanation
couldn't be replicated in email due to the use of diagrams and drwaing and
erasing lines).

The main problem with this approach is defining what "active" and "stative"
mean. Anybody who has worked in this area knows that the distinction is not
as simple as event vs. state. As everybody in this discussion has
mentioned, control is often a major contributor; and apparently
affectedness can be as well, based on what you've said about Pomo.

> > Close, but not exactly. There are very strong tendancies based on
> > event/state, volition, etc. However, none of these tendancies are without
> > exception.
>
>True, but these exceptions can be explained in ways that makes you see
>that they were once used regularly according to the overall system.
>Lexicalization, grammaticalization, borrowing, analogy.
Absolutely. But I think a major goal in analyzing the system is to give a
purely synchronic account (as much as possible, anyways). An individual
speaker does not necessarily know that a given word is lexicalized or
borrowed, but they do know what case to assign. How do they know it? How
much is pure memorization, how much is pattern matching, and how much is
forced on them by the structure of Language? These are the questions that
need to be answered.

>When I say "be red" or "be tall" is a
> > state, this is because these predicates describe a property of their
> > subject argument. When I say "work" or "laugh" is an event, I am saying
>the
> > subject is temporarily in the midst of some action. Now, what about "be
> > three"? This is *not* a property of the subject, this is a temporary
> > situation that the subject is in. Thus, in some ways it is more similar to
> > an event and it deserves to be treated like an event. But it isn't really
> > an event, because nothing happens; therefore it could reasonablly be
> > treated like a state. Languages, then, should differ on this point. They
> > probably do, though Daniel would probably know more about that than I.
>
>Well, as I've said before, I think the basic distinction in Chickasaw
>is control vs. non-control. However, Marcus is the one working on that
>particular language, so I'm probably dead wrong. Although, my idea (well,
>not _my_ idea, but the one that I see as most plausible) is to have only
>_one_ basic distinction for every language: control or P/I/E or event, and
>occasionally empathy or significant affectedness for further precision.
If I could only have one basic distinction, I would probably go with
control as well. But I don't think one is sufficient to capture the facts.

>I'm interested in knowing why you, Marcus, think "that the marking is
>determined by event vs. state, control vs. non-control, and individual vs.
>stage level predication." Anyway. I think the explanation of "temporary
>situation" is plausible too. The important thing is that you _can explain_
>it.
I include the individual vs. stage level predication distinction due to the
number verbs. It is also probably acting in other capacities as well,
though those cases can be covered by the event/state distinction. Control
is insufficient because there are actions that are not controlled, but
receive class-I marking none-the-less. _Lhabanka_ 'snore' is a good
example. It is certainly an action, but it is not typically a voluntary
one; yet _lhabanka_ may only take a class-I agreement morpheme. If control
where the only parameter, this verb should have been marked with a class-II
morpheme. I also cannot agree that number predicates are controlled. If
three people get kidnapped and thrown in a car together, there is no
control involved in "There are three of us", but the subject marking with
be class-I. I must admit though, that most times that groups of people come
together, it probably was by their own volition.

>I'm thinking of Central Pomo (again ;-) ).
Central Pomo makes my head hurt. ;-)

>  The basic distinction is
>control: "to be lazy" and "to live" take AGT and "fall" takes PAT.
This certainly looks like control.

"to be lazy" in Chickasaw is interesting. There are three different words.

yáppalli 'to be slow, lazy, lackadaisical' (I); 'to be slow, lazy in (a
place) (I;3).
pátta'a 'to just sit around on the floor doing nothing; to just like there
(like a throw rug); to be lazy (sg. subj)' (I); 'to sit around on the floor
in (a place) (I;3).
intakho'bi 'to be lazy' (III).

The last one is the equivalent of a dative subject. The former two are
marked like an Agent, but they can both be used as a transitive verb as
well. This could explain (perhaps) why they are class-I. Also, _pátta'a_ is
derived from the root <pata>, which derives such words as _patali_ 'to
pave' (I). So <pata> might be an activity. On the other hand, laziness
could be controlled, just like you suggest for Central Pomo.

Hmm, actively being lazy. Sounds like an oxymoron. :)

>Another thing that follows from this is that only human beings can be
>marked as patients, since non-humans cannot be significantly affected
>and one cannot feel empathy for them. Two examples will clarify:
>
>      'I killed him:PAT.'
>      'I killed it:AGT (the bee).'
What case is the subject of a transitive in?

>The same also holds for intransitive sentences:
>
>      'He:PAT died.'
>      'It:AGT (the bee) died.'
>
>Yet another fact based on empathy is that empathy (and thus the patient
>case) can only be assigned to first persons. One does not want to claim
>to feel what other people feel. Again some examples to explain:
>
>      'I:PAT feel warm.'
>      'He:AGT feels warm.'
>      'I:PAT am afraid.'
>      'He:AGT is afraid.'
>
>One more thing to notice about the active system of Central Pomo is
>that one can also choose to use the AGT, if one wants to just state
>a fact, without paying any attention to the affectedness of the person(s)
>involved in the action. To sum it up, this means that in Central Pomo a
>person is marked as a patient only if it is simultaneously out of control
>and significantly affected and the speaker chooses to express empathy with
>him or her (because he of she is affected in such a way.)
This is such an interesting system. I need to find the time to work on it
one day. Hopefully your thesis will enlighten me and the world.

>What I mean by all this -- sorry if it was a bit longish -- is that
>the system might seem weird at first, you might think "why are numerals
>marked as AGT?", but when you sit down and go through the system using
>the terms control, P/I/E, event, significant affectedness and empathy,
>you can explain what at first seems odd.
Indeed.

> > Not to mention the occassional structural requirements, but you
> > functionalists don't like to hear that. :)
>
>AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH!!!!!! :)  Hmmm... I think Andreas Johansson
>had a point when he said that there were universal unarticulate sounds
>we scream when in extreme agony or pain. ;-)
HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa!!!!! I guess there are universal sounds we make when we
are amused too. :) Especially when we sadistic structuralists inflict pain
on a poor, defenseless functionalist.




Marcus Smith

"Sit down before fact as a little child,
be prepared to give up every preconceived notion,
follow humbly wherever and to whatsoever abysses Nature leads,
or you shall learn nothing."
                -- Thomas Huxley