Re: USAGE: 'born'

From: "Nik Taylor" <fortytwo@...>
> Muke Tever wrote:
> > I asked if there was an active (i.e., not passive) English verb meaning 'to
be
> > born' because I couldn't think of one, and wanted a shorter, more usable
gloss
> > for the Hadwan verb <shinits> which has that meaning (which *does* exist in
both
> > passive and active) than "come into being".  The passive of such a verb
would
> > not be unnecessary at all--the passive for "the child was born [shinirits]
> > (through the mother)" might mean something along the lines of "the child was
> > brought into being [shiniritsur] (by the mother)" .
>
> How's that a passive of "to be born"?  That's a passive of "to give
> birth", it seems to me.
It would be *in English*, because we don't have a morphological way to passivize
'be born', and it has to be done lexically.  The passive means the subject is
acted on, and if the active means the subject is the baby coming into the world
('being born'), then the passive would be the baby being brought into the world
('being given birth to'), wouldn't it?

[I said]
> > As far as I know none of these verbs are inherently passive.
[...but actually I think the older ones might be. My grammar is still bad in
them.  But I do know <nacer> isn't...]

> Those are intransitive.  Active and passive are inapplicable terms.
Intransitivity is not necessarily 'inviolable'.  For example "volunteer (for a
job)" is intransitive, but it still transitivizes then passivizes:

    John volunteered for the job.
    John was volunteered for the job [by his wife].

In any case this happens in Hadwan:

    Mar  -ai   shini   -r  -itsur   yia    .Ø   in.
    Maris.INTR nate-IND.AOR.INTR-3S morning.DAT in
    "Maris was born in the morning."
    (Maris 'nated', Maris 'came into existence' in the morning.)

    Mari -s   shini   -r  -itsur   Sarakh-as.
    Maris.NOM nate-IND.AOR.PASS-3S Sarah .GEN
    "Maris was born of Sarah."
    (Maris 'was nated', Maris 'was brought into existence' through Sarah.)
    [Or, if you like, "Maris was given birth to by Sarah."]

(In Hadwan, there's not "active"/"passive" but (roughly)
"active-transitive"/"active-intransitive"/"passive".  The passive and
intransitive of the verbs are formally identical; they are differentiated
through syntax.)

Why is this difficult?

> > > What's the passive of "die"?  :-)
> >
> > There isn't a proper one in English.  But I know the passive form <morirse>
of
> > <morir> is perfectly allowable in Spanish.
>
> Morirse isn't passive, it's reflexive.
<se X> is also used as a (medio-)passive verb form. ["se habla español..."]  And
in any case, a reflexive of 'to die' is equally nonexistent in English for the
same reason, isn't it?  If it's "intransitive", it can't take a reflexive,
because the reflexive takes an object (which is the same as the subject)?

    *Muke!

Replies