Re: Short Question: Actant

I just wrote a detailed reply wiped out by a Windows keystroke
interpretation error. Why does the GOOD AND DAMNED listerv have to #$%^&*
(*&^%$# EXPIRE the page !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 16:55:02 -0000, tomhchappell <tomhchappell@...>
wrote:

>--- In conlang@yahoogroups.com, Jeffrey Jones <jsjonesmiami@Y...> wrote:
>> Does anybody know the precise definition of "actant"?
>
>According to "Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics" by P.H. Matthews
>(Oxford Paperback Reference, Oxford University Press 1997,
>LoC P29.M34 1997, ISBN 0-19-280008-6 (pbk.)),
>
>|/actants/ used by L. Tesnie`re, and thence occasionally in English,
>|for the elements in a clause that identify the participants in a
>|process, etc. referred to by a verb.  Thus, in French or English,
>|a subject, direct object, and indirect object.
>
>I would read this as:  "... participatants in a process [or] etc.,
>referred to by a verb."; and "in English, subject, primary object, and
>secondary object.", since to me it seems the preponderance of credible
>evidence favors Modern English having the Object of Monotransitive
>clauses align with the Recipient rather than with the Theme of
>Ditransitive clauses.
>
>This would mean that, in those languages spoken in and near Georgia
>and the Caucasus in which some forms of some verbs regularly
>distinguish between the instigator of an event and its ultimate
>executor, the Instigator and the Executor would be actants; splitting
>between them the role usually referred to as Agent in most languages
>(but only when the verb splits that role; otherwise there's just the
>Agent).
>
>In the same sprachbund several languages have some forms of
>some verbs distinguish "version", that is, "to whom(?) the action is
>oriented/directed".  (In some of them, this is simply a choice among
>the other actants; or a choice of person (1st, 2nd, or 3rd); or a
>combination of the preceding.) In case the verb has a principal
>beneficiary or maleficiary, that main bene- or male-ficiary is
>the "person" to "whom" the action is oriented.  Thus a portrait
>painted on commission, vs. a portrait painted as "art for art's sake",
>in one of these languages, will be painted with two
>different "versions" of the verb "paint", IIUC.  However, even when
>there is no beneficiary nor maleficiary, the verb may still have a
>version; "I'll run" is oriented me-ward, since I speak only of my
>affect on myself alone; while "I'll run this bundt cake over to Aunt
>Mabel's" is directed either cake-ward or Mabel-ward.
>
>At least one of these languages does both of the above, and so some of
>its verbs have some forms that have five (5) actants; the instigator,
>the executor, the theme, the recipient, and the main beneficiary.
>
>That's assuming I understood everything correctly.
>My wife is not a member of this group, so it is safe for me to say
>the following:  I could be wrong.  (She's not supposed to know I
>know that)
>
>> Also, while I'm in question mode, what's the proper linguistic term
>for,
>> not the person/number affixes themselves, but the kind of thing they
>> represent, collectively.
>
>Three suggestions:  accidents (or accidence), inflections, desinences.
>
>Matthews's "Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics" says of
>
>|/accidents/ Ancient term for a variable property of words
>|belonging to a specific part of speech.  Accidents included
>|categories of inflection:  e.g. number and case as variable
>|features of nouns.  They also included any other feature that
>|might vary:  e.g. the 'quality' of nouns
>|(lit. their 'what-sort-ness') was an accident initially
>|distinguishing proper nouns from common nouns.
>|    Later used especially of categories of inflection:  hence
>|'/accidence/' is in effect an older term for
>|inflectional morphology.
>
>|/desinence/ An older term for an inflectional ending.  E.g. /-s/
>|in /books/ is the plural desinence.
>
>|/inflection/ Any form or change of form which distinguishes
>|different grammatical forms of the same lexical unit.
>|E.g. plural /books/ is distinguished from singular /book/ by the
>|inflection /-s/, which is by that token a plural inflection.
>|   The term originally meant 'modification' (lit. 'bending'):
>|thus /book/ is modified, by addition of /-s/, to /books/.
>
>Although I like "accidents", I think it might be "inflections".
>
>I have heard several different definitions of the difference
>between"inflection" and "derivation", and some pairs of them are
>compatible with each other.
>
>Among them are these:
>
>"Derivation" is what you do to a "root" to get a "stem";
>"inflection" is what you do to a "stem".
>
>"Derivation" creates, from a word, a new word that is a different
>part-of-speech than the original word;
>"Inflection" creates, from a word, a new word that is the same
>part-of-speech as the original word.
>
>"Derivation" creates, from a word, a new word that is notably
>different in meaning from the original word;
>"Inflection" creates, from a word, a new word that is notably
>similar in meaning as the original word.
>
>"Derivation" is one or more of:  not transparent (it isn't
>obvious what the relationship is between the original word and
>the derived word), or not predictable (the same derivation
>process doesn't produce the same relationship in meaning when
>applied to different original words), or not productive (the
>derivation process cannot be used on new words);
>
>"Inflection" is one or more of:  transparent (it is obvious what
>the relationship is between the original word and the inflected
>word), or predictable (the same inflection process (almost) always
>produces (almost) the same relationship in meaning when applied to
>different original words), or productive (the inflection process
>can be used on new words).
>
>I think all of the above descriptions of "inflection" apply to
>such things as personal affixes, impersonal affixes, construct
>state, and combined person/number affixes.
>
>> I'd like my grammatical explanations to be clear. Thanks to anyone
>who even
>> tries to answer.
>
>Well, I gave it a try; you're welcome.
>I don't feel confident "inflections" is the right answer.
>Would someone else on the list say?
>
>Incidentally, what's wrong with "desinences" except that it applies
>only to endings?
>
>> Jeff
>
>While we are on this subject:
>
>What /are/ all the accidents of Verbs?
>Aside from concord with actants in Person, Number, and Gender:
>Verbs can have:
>Tense, Aspect, Mood, Voice, Version;
>and what else?
>Is Aktionsart ever an inflection, or is it only an accident?
>
>What /are/ all the accidents of Nouns?
>Gender, of course, which is usually not an inflection of the noun,
>but rather governs the concord of other words with the noun;
>Case, Number -- Am I leaving anything out?
>Where does State fit in?
>(Definiteness, Referentiality, Specificity, Construct State)
>
>What /are/ all the accidents of Adjectives?
>Aside from Grade or Degree of Comparison
>(e.g. positive, comparative, superlative), do adjectives have any
>other accidents other than concord with their head noun in case,
>gender, and number?
>
>Do Adpositions, Conjunctions, and/or Interjections
>ever have accidents?
>
>What /are/ all the accidents of Pronouns?
>Obviously Person is the main one; also Case, Number, and Gender;
>but there must be more.
>
>Thanks, like Jeff says, to anyone who even attempts to answer any
>of the above questions.
>
>Tom H.C. in MI
>=========================================================================

Reply