Re: not un-/anti-passive

On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 9:04 PM, Jeffrey Jones <jsjonesmiami@...>
wrote:

> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:20:12 +0300, JR <fuscian@...> wrote:
> >
> >On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 12:36 PM, Jeffrey Jones <jsjonesmiami@...>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:30:03 +0300, JR <fuscian@...> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 4:38 AM, Jeffrey Jones
> >> > <jsjonesmiami@...>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> In Naisek, there are some grammatical voice prefixes, including a
> >> >> causative and two kinds of passive. Another one adds a dative
> subject,
> >> >> usually indicating a perceiver, to verbs which otherwise have
> patientive
> >> >> subjects. I had first mistakenly called it an antipassive prefix (I
> don't
> >> >> know why, except that it is the opposite of a passive). This was
> hastily
> >> >> changed to unpassive when I looked at it later. It turns out that
> >> >> unpassive is also already used for something else, so I need a new
> >> >> term. Does anybody know?
> >> >>
> >> >> Jeff
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Do I understand correctly that this is used to de-emphasize an
> >> > already-existing patientive subject, and not to add a new argument?
> >>
> >> No, it adds a new argument, although the role of the dative may be
> >> implicit.
> >>
> >> > Does the new dative trigger agreement in the verb (if there is
> agreement
> >> > at all)?
> >>
> >> Yes.
> >>
> >> > Can it be used with any verb with a patientive subject? If not, how is
> >> > its range limited?
> >>
> >> I think so. I forgot to say it's also used with modal auxiliaries.
> >>
> >> > When you say the dative subject "usually" indicates a perceiver, what
> are
> >> > the other possibilities?
> >>
> >> Someone shaded or rained on, as in examples (1) and (2), and another
> role
> >> I don't know the name for in (5).
> >>
> >> > Can you give some examples?
> >>
> >> Note: ABS = patientive, ERG = agentive
> >>
> >> (1) Ho-paldu-bwe.
> >>    ???-rain.PRS.IND-1NPD
> >>    "It's raining on us."
> >> Technically, paldax is impersonal, but there can still be a patientive
> >> argument.
> >> (2) Hi korilo su-bwe ho-naus-in.
> >>    DEF-INA.S.ABS hazel.S.ABS COP.PRS.IND-1NPD ???-shade-VN
> >>    "The hazel shades us."
> >> (The COP copula + VN verbal noun construction = habitual aspect.)
> >> (3) T-a-m matse t-i ho-jad-en-ti xiskw-e.
> >>    3-ANI.S-GEN mother.S.DAT 3-INA.S.ABS ???-seem-FUT.IND-3SD terrible-
> >> SPO
> >>    "It will seem terrible to her mother."
> >> (4) Ho-laun-os-t-ki gaut-a daxme tep nu.
> >>    ???-beautiful-CMP-VRB-1SD NUL-ANI.S.ABS woman.S.ABS than 2S.ABS
> >>    "There's no woman more beautiful to me than you."
> >> (5) T-i juku ho-laip-ti-twe.
> >>    3-INA.S.ABS very ???-easy-VRB-3PD
> >>    "It's very easy for them."
> >> (6) Johanna-i ho-bof-ti lo Tomas-a disp-ax-ta.
> >>    Joan-DAT ???-modal.PRS.IND-3SD CPL Tom-ERG dance-SUB-3SE
> >>    "Joan thinks Tom should dance."
> >
> >
> >So far it looks like a circumstantial voice, like that of Malagasy ...
> >though differing in the specifics. Can you give the "normal" versions of a
> >few of these sentences, though, without using the construction in
> question?
> >Say, numbers 1, 2, and 6. And what's the meaning of the modal in 6?
> >
> >Josh
>
> I googled for circumstantial voice and it doesn't look like it qualifies.
>
> (1a) Paldi.
>    rain.PRS.IND.3SA
>    "It's raining."
> (2a) Hi korilo si naus-in.
>    DEF-INA.S.ABS hazel.S.ABS COP.PRS.IND-3SA shade-VN
>    "The hazel provides shade."
> (6a) Tomas-a bof-ta disp-ax.
>    Tom-ERG modal.PRS.IND-3SE dance-INF
>    "Tom should dance."
>
> Bofax is hard for me to gloss or to even describe. I usually translate it
> as "should", although that can be misleading.
>
In the circumstantial voice (to answer Eldin here as well) an oblique
argument is promoted to subject. That's the core of it. What I really wanted
to see when I asked for "normal" versions of those sentences was how
experiencers were encoded in Naisek outside of this construction. You left
them out altogether, but unless they're being elided here, this shows just
as well that they are oblique, i.e., not core arguments required by the
verb.

The fact that these experiencers, when promoted to subject, appear with
dative case, I would not attribute to the operation in question at all.
According to your web page, dative case is used for experiencer-subjects (at
least sometimes?) even in active voice, so I'd think this is just another
application of the same principle of case assignment.

Of course your construction here is different from Malagasy not only in the
case of the new subject, but in the types of oblique arguments that can be
promoted in the first place. In Malagasy, it can be used for instruments,
times, locations, beneficiaries, manners - perhaps any oblique, but I don't
really know. In Naisek it's limited to experiencers. But the operation
itself seems the same. You would just have to specify its range - you could
even call it a Experiencer-Circumstantial voice if you want.

Finally - instead of saying that the subject in the original structure must
be a patient, would it be better to say simply that the *event* described
must be some perceivable/experienceable state? Perhaps it amounts to the
same thing most of the time, but from what I've seen, I wonder if this isn't
the true determining factor. I'm especially troubled by (1), where there is
no subject at all. Even if there could be one in another sentence with the
same verb, there isn't one here (I assume the behavior is like that of the
English 'rain', which can take a patient, but usually doesn't). Even aside
from that though, it makes more sense to me that the possibility/behavior of
an experiencer of an event would be dependent on some characteristic of the
event as a whole, rather than the semantic role of any one argument.

What do you think?

Eldin, in applicatives, an non-direct object, or oblique argument is
promoted to direct object, as I understand. I don't see that ocurring here
though. Not really sure about good web resources for the circumstantial -
there's a little here, a little there. There's a page on wikipedia, but I
think there's a mistake in it.

(ObAFMC) Khafos has a circumstantial voice which is pretty close to
Malagasy's, though it's used for indirect objects as well as any other
oblique arguments. AFAIK, IOs are in Malagasy are promoted with the normal
passive voice, just like DOs.

Josh