Re: not un-/anti-passive

On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 8:24 PM, Eldin Raigmore <eldin_raigmore@...>
wrote:

> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 22:44:07 +0300, JR <fuscian@...> wrote:
> >[snip]
> >In the circumstantial voice (to answer Eldin here as well) an oblique
> >argument is promoted to subject. That's the core of it.
> So it's like the voices in trigger languages, but with only one voice that
> promotes an oblique to subject.
> 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; in some of
> these languages, passivization can only "move" the direct or primary object
> to
> the subject, but one can passivize a sentence which is "already"
> applicative.
>
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!


> >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.
>
> I don't want to quibble nor derail this discussion, but I think I may be a
> bit
> confused about what you mean.  I am under the impression that "argument"
> means "required by the verb", and that "core" means "occupies a grammatical
> relation (or morphosyntactically-licensed argument position).  All core
> participants are arguments, and all adjuncts (non-arguments) are oblique
> (non-
> core), but there are oblique arguments.
>
> In a language with only 2 GRs (subject and (only) object), and with no
> clause
> allowed more than one of any GR, a ditransitive clause would have to have
> one
> of its arguments be oblique.  If that's the recipient, then recipients are
> oblique
> arguments; they aren't objects, because "object" means "any core argument
> other than the subject".
>
> But the main point – that in Naisek experiencers (and, presumably,
> recipients)
> appear to be coded as oblique arguments rather than as core arguments – I
> do
> understand.

You're probably right then. I'm no expert - I don't think I ever learned
this stuff properly, and I've seen inconsistent usage that's left me a bit
confused. Terminology aside, I was trying to see if these experiencers were
lexically required by the verb or not. It could also have been that they
were required for some verbs and not others, so I asked for different
versions of three sentences that I thought would be representative, and
Jeffrey left the experiencers out of all three. To use your (and probably
the most correct) terminology now, I'd say that without this operation with
the ho- affix, they're neither core nor oblique arguments (and as Jeffrey
now says, they're not even expressable at all); but with it, they become
core arguments, namely Subjects. Would you agree with that?

>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.
>
> To me, you look right.  (Is that "to me" an ethical dative?)

I'm open to correction, but I'd say no, because 'to me' fills a certain role
there. 'Looking' a certain way has to be in the eyes of someone or other
(whether it's expressed or not). If there were no one who it looked right
'to', the statement would be false. I thought the ethical dative is just an
aside, a comment, to something that stands on its own.


> >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.
>
> If your analysis is correct, he could also borrow whatever term grammarians
> of
> Tagalog use to describe the voice that has this meaning.

I'm not aware that there is anything quite like this in Tagalog.


> >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?
>
> I am not yet able to follow this discussion well enough to answer; it
> requires
> sharp and fine distinctions and reasoning that I may be able to carry
> through
> later, but not at the moment.  But I will say that ANAICT your points are
> worth thinking about.
>
> >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.
>
> I haven't yet consulted Wikipedia's page.
>
> In 3-GR (or 3-MAP) languages, if an oblique argument is promoted to the 3rd
> GR ("indirect object" in many languages), this is often called "dative
> applicative".  If the resulting clause then undergoes "dative movement",
> that
> originally-oblique argument might wind up in the 2nd  GR (primary object or
> direct object).

What languages have dative applicatives? You're speaking of something other
than possessor raising, right?

In 2-GR (or 2-MAP) languages, if an oblique argument is promoted to the 2nd
> GR (primary object or direct object), this is called "applicative".  If the
> resulting clause then undergoes passivization, that originally-oblique
> argument
> might wind up in the 1st GR (subject).
>
> Tagalog and (some? Many? Most? All?) other "trigger" languages appear to
> have only one GR or MAP; the subject.  They don't have objects; all
> arguments other than the subject are oblique arguments.  A voice that
> promotes an oblique argument has to promote it directly to subject.
>
Tagalog & friends are a little too difficult and contentious for me to deal
with these days. Everyone has their own theory and it's hard to argue, and
when you do it can get ugly, sort of like cross and crown. I also don't
remember the details so well now, and perhaps I never knew them well enough.
I took a course in college on the structure of Tagalog though - my prof
there thought it had an ergative-absolutive alignment, an active and an
antipassive voice, and the other "voices" were applicatives. No triggers in
sight.

What do you use GR and MAP to stand for? Grammatical relation? And ...?


> >(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
>
> Well, obviously, I don't know.  I'm not sure whether Malagasay actually has
> indirect objects.  Or objects at all.  Maybe it's a 2-GR language, and some
> clauses we'd think of as ditransitive, are actually dechticaetiative; the
> (only,
> hence primary) object is the recipient, and the theme is an oblique
> argument.
> Or maybe it's a 1-GR language, and both the theme and the recipient are
> oblique arguments, and to promote either to subject requires the same
> marking
> on the verb, the one you've called "passive voice".  Or maybe it's a 3-GR
> language.
>
> Have you considered all of those?  What do your sources tell you that would
> support or contradict each possibility? Or is the most-preferable analysis
> one I
> omitted?
>
 I can't say I've looked into these matters enough to have formed my own
opinions. For indirect objects in Malagasy, I think I was going according to
the analysis in this paper:
http://folk.uio.no/janengh/gassisk/Simple%20Sentences.pdf . If it were 2-GR,
and IOs were really oblique, why would they use the same passive as the DO,
instead of the circumstantial? If you really want to know about Mal.,
though, ask Matt Pearson - he used to be on this list, though I haven't seen
him in a while.

I'm not familiar with this 1-GR notion. Are there any languages where such
an analysis is generally accepted, preferably not Austronesian? :-)

ObYourConlang: Is Khafos in the same genetic grouping as Malagasay and
> Tagalog?
>
> --------
> eldin

No relation, I'm afraid!

Josh