Re: not un-/anti-passive

Hi!

Eldin Raigmore writes:
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 14:38:41 +0300, JR <fuscian@...> wrote:
>>On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 8:24 PM, Eldin Raigmore <eldin_raigmore@...>
>>wrote:
>>>In applicative languages, one of the reasons to promote an oblique
>>>argument to direct (or primary) object, is so that passivization can be
>>>applied to the result, and thus the oblique argument can wind up as
>>>subject....
>
>>Indeed. I came across another reason yesterday while looking through my
>>grammar of Yimas, a Papuan language with six applicatives (in addition to
>>possessor raising to dative). According to the author, when something can be
>>expressed with an applicative or without one, the former is much more
>>likely, just because it's more polysynthetic. The closer you can get to a
>>one word sentence, the better!
>
> Interesting!
And exactly the idea in my Qþyn|gài. :-)

**Henrik