zompist bboard

THIS IS AN ARCHIVE ONLY - see Ephemera
It is currently Sat Dec 07, 2019 9:11 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 180 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:53 am 
Avisaru
Avisaru

Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:58 pm
Posts: 807
Gond wrote:
Lol, no, I mean, it's just too complicated..., and I get too confuse..., and then I start trying to understand it..., and I usually end up understand its mechanism and the way this works..., but I'll quickly lose concentration, because I'm making a big effort..., and then I have to do all that effort again in order to regain that understanding..., and right now(maybe I'm not yet prepared to understand or know certain things..) I get to tired..., and then I get frustrated..., and that's what I mean by 'getting on my nerves'. Why am I using this expression wrongly?
Sorry for the will... :mrgreen:
You said, "put me on my nerves", which is an expression I had never before heard. So I don't know if you were using it rightly or wrongly. It's just not idiomatic in my idiolect of English.
As for "get on my nerves": -- the frustration etc. you describe could be considered "getting on your nerves". It's just that usually when you say something "gets on your nerves" you mean that a person or group of people is annoying you or pissing you off by repeatedly doing that thing (they may or (more usually) may not intend to annoy you thereby). I don't think it's common to use it to describe a non-volitional action of an inanimate actor. I guess the relevant answer to "did you use it incorrectly?" is "I don't know, but I didn't understand it correctly".
And, no apology is necessary, but thanks for it, anyway.
:)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 10:01 am 
Sanci
Sanci

Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 21
Location: Lisbon, Portugal
Thanks, I didn't even note it wasn't 'put', but 'get'..., lol. And I didn't really know when to use it...

_________________
Non omne id quod fulget aurum est.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:31 pm 
Sanci
Sanci

Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2006 5:51 pm
Posts: 33
Location: Deep, DEEP in the heart of my conlanging smithy...and it's going to be a long winter.
TomHChappell wrote:
u. Active Split-P
Nominative D, A, S

Primative R, P, S

Absolutive T, P, S


I think "Split-P" better describes my conlang's ditransitive MSA than "dechticaetiative." Whether a P is tagged with the R case or T case depends on the verb type, not the valency. Whereas in a dechticaetiative langauge, it's valency dependent, if I understand it right. You can't have a T without 2 other participants to the verb.

So I guess Iogkwah is fluid-S/split-P.

Is "Split-P" actually a linguistic term or did you make it up?

Still can't decide what to actually call these 3 cases though. :?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:42 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru

Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:58 pm
Posts: 807
cromulant wrote:
Is "Split-P" actually a linguistic term or did you make it up?
No, I didn't make it up; but I think it was originally called "Split-O", and there's some sort of minority alternate meaning for "Split-P".
See Taba as a Split-O Language.

[EDIT]: Wouldn't Primordial Soup be the right person to ask about Split-P? [/EDIT]

( :P :wink: :mrgreen: )


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2007 4:10 am 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2004 5:40 pm
Posts: 1248
Location: Si'ahl
What do you call a language that lacks morphosyntactic alignment in any real sense at all?

My old project Naidda does not mark nouns for their roles, not by morphology and not by word order (excluding datives, for which there is a preposition). In transitive sentences, agents and patients are both agreed with by the verb, and this (plus context) is the main way they are told apart. There is a single set of fused subject-object agreement suffixes. For example, a sentence could be glossed "hit-AGR he I" and the AGR suffix is what tells which hit the other. -ai marks 3sg subject, 1st person object, so if the sentence is "hit-ai he I", he hits me. But if it's "hit-j@ he I", it's me that hits him. But if, for example, both the agent and patient are 3sg, ambiguity results and context helps determine which is doing what to the other. In the rare event even context fails, an intransitive clause can be brought in to clarify. "Hit Juan Pedro. Hit Juan." (where the intransitive subject is the agent of the former sentence)... but again, this is very rarely needed.

With intransitive verbs these suffixes don't occur and there's a different set of agreement suffixes for the single argument that bears little morphological resemblance to anything in the transitive set.

So I suppose you could call it tripartite, in the sense that S, A, and P are all dealt with separately, but really I find it a stretch to try to fit Naidda into such a mold. I prefer to analyze it as morphosyntactically unaligned.



Now, among natlangs, the system sometimes called "animacy hierarchy" is also morphosyntactically unaligned in some languages (though more often it coexists with or is part of an alignment system). But I don't know of any natural languages that fail to have either an animacy hierarchy or an alignment.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2007 4:31 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru

Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:58 pm
Posts: 807
Radius Solis wrote:
What do you call a language that lacks morphosyntactic alignment in any real sense at all?
I call it "interesting".

Radius Solis wrote:
My old project Naidda does not mark nouns for their roles, not by morphology and not by word order (excluding datives, for which there is a preposition). In transitive sentences, agents and patients are both agreed with by the verb, and this (plus context) is the main way they are told apart. There is a single set of fused subject-object agreement suffixes. For example, a sentence could be glossed "hit-AGR he I" and the AGR suffix is what tells which hit the other. -ai marks 3sg subject, 1st person object, so if the sentence is "hit-ai he I", he hits me. But if it's "hit-j@ he I", it's me that hits him.
That's neat! And I think it's an ANADEWism (that is, A Natlang Already Does that (Even Worse?)).

Radius Solis wrote:
But if, for example, both the agent and patient are 3sg, ambiguity results and context helps determine which is doing what to the other. In the rare event even context fails, an intransitive clause can be brought in to clarify. "Hit Juan Pedro. Hit Juan." (where the intransitive subject is the agent of the former sentence)... but again, this is very rarely needed.
I've read of a South American language like that.

Radius Solis wrote:
With intransitive verbs these suffixes don't occur and there's a different set of agreement suffixes for the single argument that bears little morphological resemblance to anything in the transitive set.

So I suppose you could call it tripartite, in the sense that S, A, and P are all dealt with separately, but really I find it a stretch to try to fit Naidda into such a mold. I prefer to analyze it as morphosyntactically unaligned.
No, I've seen this in a couple of Burmese languages and in some Iranian language as well. (The only one of them I can think of the name of is "Lolo"; and maybe that's wrong. Sorry.)
The Original Poster probably included a diagram for this system. Anyway I've seen such a diagram several times. I'll have to work to find the label that went with it, though.

Radius Solis wrote:
Now, among natlangs, the system sometimes called "animacy hierarchy" is also morphosyntactically unaligned in some languages (though more often it coexists with or is part of an alignment system).
Even in the languages I mentioned above, which are not Hierarchical nor Inverse/Direct, if it happens that one of the 3sg participants is animate and the other isn't, then, depending on the verb, it's probably going to be quite likely that the animate one is the agent and the inanimate one is the patient. "Eat-AGR3sg3sg George Sandwich" is unlikely to be interpreted as "The sandwich is eating George".

Radius Solis wrote:
But I don't know of any natural languages that fail to have either an animacy hierarchy or an alignment.
I'm pretty sure there are at least the four I mentioned above.
But you should know that there are situations in which Hierarchical MSA languages have trouble; specifically,
  • when both of, or neither of, the participants in the transitive clause are Speech Act Participants (Speaker or Addressee), and also
  • both of, or neither of, the participants in the transitive clause are Animate.
Since your language has the verb agree with the persons of the agent and patient, you won't have problems when one of them is 1st person and the other is 2nd person. But you'll still have problems whenever a transitive clause's participants are two 3rd-person inanimates or two 3rd-person animates of the same grammatical number. Most Hierarchical MSA languages solve that problem via "obviation". But that South-American language I mentioned above would have to disambiguate exactly as you said; "Hit Juan Pedro. Hit Juan.", unless, in context, it wasn't ambiguous for narrative or discursive or pragmatic reasons.

[EDIT]:I am sorry, I cannot find that diagram. I think it was in an article of Dryer's. Again, I could be wrong.[/EDIT]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2007 9:19 am 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2004 5:40 pm
Posts: 1248
Location: Si'ahl
TomHChappell wrote:
But that South-American language I mentioned above would have to disambiguate exactly as you said; "Hit Juan Pedro. Hit Juan.", unless, in context, it wasn't ambiguous for narrative or discursive or pragmatic reasons.


I don't know about South American, there may be some there that do this as well, but one language known for doing this is Sierra Popoluca, a language of Mexico. There is a discussion of it in Describing Morphosyntax. Sierra Popoluca is an animacy-hierarchy language, though.

In Naidda I didn't want to let there be any grammatical use of obviation, I just wanted to let context and assumptions about what's normal be a guide. There is no grammatical "animacy" either. So in overtly ambiguous sentences like "eat I sandwich", it's assumable that I'm eating the sandwich, yes, but in most true animacy hierarchies "kick you horse" means you are kicking the horse, with morphology required to reverse this, when the natural assumption to be expected is the horse kicking you, because horses are known for this, despite being overall less likely than humans to be a clausal agent.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:20 pm 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 11:46 am
Posts: 1138
Location: The vendée of America
Terpish follows the boring old accusative-dative model, which only makes sense considering its main influences (both in real life and in the context of the conworld) are Indo-European languages, Arabic, and Japanese, all of which fit that model pretty snugly. On the other hand, I have planned on a fluid-S system for Socialese, assuming something more intriguing doesn't pop up later on.

I recall someone mentioning a hierarchical morphosyntactic alignment in another thread about offensive grammar. Could someone provide a detailed explanation or point me to one?

_________________
Image
"There was a particular car I soon came to think of as distinctly St. Louis-ish: a gigantic white S.U.V. with a W. bumper sticker on it for George W. Bush."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 2:13 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru

Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:58 pm
Posts: 807
Eddy wrote:
I recall someone mentioning a hierarchical morphosyntactic alignment in another thread about offensive grammar. Could someone provide a detailed explanation or point me to one?


The following could be the four quickest introductions to this question in this "L&L Museum":

http://www.spinnoff.com/zbb/viewtopic.php?p=421973&highlight=direct%2A+invers%2A+hierarch%2A+align%2A#421973
http://www.spinnoff.com/zbb/viewtopic.php?p=421989&highlight=direct%2A+invers%2A+hierarch%2A+align%2A#421989
http://www.spinnoff.com/zbb/viewtopic.php?p=448960&highlight=direct%2A+invers%2A+hierarch%2A+align%2A#448960
http://www.spinnoff.com/zbb/viewtopic.php?p=505220&highlight=direct%2A+invers%2A+hierarch%2A+align%2A#505220

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's a list of posts in this forum (L&L Museum) about them.
Some of them may tell you things those first four don't.
I tried to put first those which either contained more general information or contained links to websites with more general information.
Don't know how well I did at that.
In some cases earlier and/or later posts in the same thread will be equally or even more informative for your purposes.

http://www.spinnoff.com/zbb/viewtopic.php?p=675&highlight=inverse+delancey#675
http://www.spinnoff.com/zbb/viewtopic.php?p=22623&highlight=hierarch%2A#22623
http://www.spinnoff.com/zbb/viewtopic.php?p=22801&highlight=hierarch%2A#22801
http://www.spinnoff.com/zbb/viewtopic.php?p=108620&highlight=hierarch%2A#108620
http://www.spinnoff.com/zbb/viewtopic.php?p=108885&highlight=hierarch%2A#108885
http://www.spinnoff.com/zbb/viewtopic.php?p=421973&highlight=hierarch%2A#421973
http://www.spinnoff.com/zbb/viewtopic.php?p=421989&highlight=hierarch%2A#421989
http://www.spinnoff.com/zbb/viewtopic.php?p=422651&highlight=hierarch%2A#422651
http://www.spinnoff.com/zbb/viewtopic.php?p=448960&highlight=hierarch%2A#448960
http://www.spinnoff.com/zbb/viewtopic.php?p=475976&highlight=hierarch%2A#475976
http://www.spinnoff.com/zbb/viewtopic.php?p=505059&highlight=hierarch%2A#505059
http://www.spinnoff.com/zbb/viewtopic.php?p=505220&highlight=hierarch%2A#505220
http://www.spinnoff.com/zbb/viewtopic.php?p=509704&highlight=hierarch%2A#509704

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe you'd also like to look at

http://www.spinnoff.com/zbb/viewtopic.php?p=455875&highlight=hierarch%2A#455875
http://www.spinnoff.com/zbb/viewtopic.php?p=482877&highlight=hierarch%2A#482877
http://www.spinnoff.com/zbb/viewtopic.php?p=483180&highlight=hierarch%2A#483180
http://www.spinnoff.com/zbb/viewtopic.php?p=494493&highlight=hierarch%2A#494493
http://www.spinnoff.com/zbb/viewtopic.php?p=494983&highlight=hierarch%2A#494983
http://www.spinnoff.com/zbb/viewtopic.php?p=494983&highlight=hierarch%2A#494983
http://www.spinnoff.com/zbb/viewtopic.php?p=530998&highlight=hierarch%2A#530998
http://www.spinnoff.com/zbb/viewtopic.php?p=531087&highlight=hierarch%2A#531087


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 5:59 pm 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 11:46 am
Posts: 1138
Location: The vendée of America
Hmm, so it's something I've heard of before, just not the terminology itself. I actually had a conlang based on that principle more or less, in that it used context to determine subject and object based on animacy and similar principles. It also had what I called a "Soviet Russia" particle to indicate that the subject and object were reversed from what our expectations were (ie. "fish eats man" instead of "man eats fish").

_________________
Image
"There was a particular car I soon came to think of as distinctly St. Louis-ish: a gigantic white S.U.V. with a W. bumper sticker on it for George W. Bush."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 6:17 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru

Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:58 pm
Posts: 807
Eddy wrote:
It also had what I called a "Soviet Russia" particle to indicate that the subject and object were reversed from what our expectations were (ie. "fish eats man" instead of "man eats fish").
Named after Yakov Smirnov's old joke?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 6:52 pm 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 11:46 am
Posts: 1138
Location: The vendée of America
Yeah, Tom


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 1:55 pm 
Niš
Niš
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 3:43 am
Posts: 5
Location: ælegejny
What would you all call this system? I have a lexical split between two semantic classes of verbs that appear in different transitive constructions. Using -x to indicate the cases:

intransitive: S-s
transitive: A-a P-s / A-s P-p

The alignment of S is split, but its morphology is not. I usually see split-S described as:

S-a / S-p
A-a P-p


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 3:04 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru

Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:58 pm
Posts: 807
Endymion wrote:
What would you all call this system? I have a lexical split between two semantic classes of verbs that appear in different transitive constructions. Using -x to indicate the cases:

intransitive: S-s
transitive: A-a P-s / A-s P-p

The alignment of S is split, but its morphology is not. I usually see split-S described as:

S-a / S-p
A-a P-p
This is the "Austronesian alignment system". You've added the fillip that the "A-a P-s" vs "A-s P-p" choice depends on the class of the verb.

The "Austronesian/Phillipine" morphosyntactic alignment system is not the same as Split-S nor Fluid-S nor Tripartite.

See e.g. this thread for some explanations; and/or also see the Wikipedia article.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 5:03 pm 
Niš
Niš
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 3:43 am
Posts: 5
Location: ælegejny
I saw the Wikipedia article, even noticed that the Austronesian alignment had the same three cases. But then I moved on because it seemed like the association of those cases with the focus/trigger system was an important part of the definition. I have now read the article more closely and it's close, so think I could call my system "split transitive" with the proviso that I would call the Austronesian system "fluid transitive". I don't feel too deviant rejecting the term "Austronesian alignment", since when I google it I get copies of Wikipedia and conlanging resources, but no scientific papers.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 08, 2007 12:15 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru

Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:58 pm
Posts: 807
Endymion wrote:
I saw the Wikipedia article, even noticed that the Austronesian alignment had the same three cases. But then I moved on because it seemed like the association of those cases with the focus/trigger system was an important part of the definition. I have now read the article more closely and it's close, so think I could call my system "split transitive" with the proviso that I would call the Austronesian system "fluid transitive". I don't feel too deviant rejecting the term "Austronesian alignment", since when I google it I get copies of Wikipedia and conlanging resources, but no scientific papers.
Makes sense.

BTW the "trigger system" is just voice. The "subject" is lexically marked with a word which is both an "absolutive/nominative adposition" (indicating that it's the syntactic subject) and a "definite article"; then the verb is morphologically marked to indicate which semantic role the "subject" playes.

If the verb is morphologically marked to show what semantic role the subject plays, that's voice. If your lang doesn't do that, but instead relies solely on the case-marking of the object(s) to show that the subject must take the "highest" semantic role no other NP takes, I guess that's not a trigger system.

Are "split-transitive" systems found in scientific papers? I think that and "fluid-transitive" are great terms; but people who aren't familiar with them may need to have it pointed out how they're different from "split-intransitive" and "fluid-intransitive".


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 09, 2007 12:47 pm 
Niš
Niš
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 3:43 am
Posts: 5
Location: ælegejny
I made the terms up. But I used what seems to be alignment jargon's productive morphology. Austronesianists take note! I'll continue my conlang-related thoughts in C&C to not clutter the Museum.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 8:01 am 
Sanci
Sanci

Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2005 7:01 am
Posts: 28
Location: Hiding
TomHChappell wrote:
cromulant wrote:
... snip ... allows all of these possibilities; there's a lot of slip-n-slide involved in assigning surface cases to underlying theta roles. It's not quite "maximally fluid" ... snip ...


I have thought of another four-case system that's even more fluid.

To show off my truly astounding creativity :mrgreen: , I'm going to name the cases thus:
  1. Alphative
  2. Betative
  3. Gammative
  4. Deltative

.... chomp ....

How's that for fluidity? :wink:

Brilliant. You could probably use that for the basis of a trigger system, although with more variation than the Austronesian alignment.

_________________
Zoqaëski : /θoˈca.jes.ki/
Last.fm
Twitter


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 9:21 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru

Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 1:44 pm
Posts: 557
Location: Moorhead, MN, USA
Eridanian is Accusative-Dative language in Active Voice but is Tripartite-Dative in Passive Voice. In Passive voice transitive sentences the Agent of the sentence takes the Ablative Case and the Patient takes the Accusative Case.

Nominative
Accusative
Ablative

eAon sheablaod (Ann played)

eAon eblaod demigaom (Ann played the game)

Demigaom ewezblaod witAon (The game was played by Ann)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 2:57 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru

Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:58 pm
Posts: 807
TaylorS wrote:
Eridanian is Accusative-Dative language in Active Voice but is Tripartite-Dative in Passive Voice. In Passive voice transitive sentences the Agent of the sentence takes the Ablative Case and the Patient takes the Accusative Case.
Now, that is interesting!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:13 am 
Avisaru
Avisaru

Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 1:44 pm
Posts: 557
Location: Moorhead, MN, USA
TomHChappell wrote:
TaylorS wrote:
Eridanian is Accusative-Dative language in Active Voice but is Tripartite-Dative in Passive Voice. In Passive voice transitive sentences the Agent of the sentence takes the Ablative Case and the Patient takes the Accusative Case.
Now, that is interesting!


Thanks! I thought of it when I realized that if the distinction between subjective and objective pronouns was lost that the English passive voice would become morphosyntactically ambiguous.

Already the subject of passive voice sentences "feels" like the object to me, I would think that it would shift to the accusative case if given the chance. The prepositions such as "to" and "with" used in passive voice may cause the direct object to shift to the the ablative case.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:06 am 
Avisaru
Avisaru

Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 4:22 pm
Posts: 370
Location: UK
Sander wrote:
English is accusative-dative.
Image
Look at these two sentences.

1. You gave the newspaper to me.
2. You gave me the newspaper.

In example 1 "newspaper" is accusative and "to me" is dative. But what about example 2 in which "me" is clearly accusative?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 11:21 am 
Avisaru
Avisaru
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 9:43 am
Posts: 364
Location: the turing machine doesn't stop here any more
Mornche Geddick wrote:
Sander wrote:
English is accusative-dative.
Image
Look at these two sentences.

1. You gave the newspaper to me.
2. You gave me the newspaper.

In example 1 "newspaper" is accusative and "to me" is dative. But what about example 2 in which "me" is clearly accusative?

No, "me" is not "clearly" accusative in 2.
There's other stuff than just the word order that helps there.
For instance, the existence of a 'to X' dative bars the existence of an adpositionless indirect object, and the existence of two objects bars the existence of an adposition-marked indirect object; in example 2, 'me' is actually dative, for a variety of reasons.

C.f.
square brackets with numbers are indices for reference.

didn't you hear [Ø 1] or see [me 1]?
*didn't you hear [Ø 1] or give [me 1] icecream
did you sell [Ø 1] or give [me 1] icecream?
did you sell me [Ø 1] or give me [icecream 1]?
tell me, did you sell John [Ø 1] or give Eve [your car i]

*did you give [Ø 1] poison or bludgeon John?
*did you give [John 1] poison or bludgeon [Ø 1]
but
did you give poison to [], or bludgeon John?
*did you give John poison, or bludgeon

_________________
< Cev> My people we use cars. I come from a very proud car culture-- every part of the car is used, nothing goes to waste. When my people first saw the car, generations ago, we called it šuŋka wakaŋ-- meaning "automated mobile".


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 5:35 am 
Lebom
Lebom
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 10:31 pm
Posts: 244
Location: Kliwia Czarna
TaylorS wrote:
TomHChappell wrote:
TaylorS wrote:
Eridanian is Accusative-Dative language in Active Voice but is Tripartite-Dative in Passive Voice. In Passive voice transitive sentences the Agent of the sentence takes the Ablative Case and the Patient takes the Accusative Case.
Now, that is interesting!


AFAIK there are some languages which do a similar thing by headmarking i.e. verbs agree with passive subjects as if they were objects:

Edward L. Keenan and Matthew S. Dryer wrote:
(iii) The passive verb may agree with its subject as though it were a direct object
of an active verb. This is the case in Maasai (Nilo-Saharan) and Kimbundu (Bantu;
Angola). Example (21) below is from Kimbundu:
(21) a. A-mu-mono
they-him-saw
‘They saw him.’
b. Nzua a-mu-mono kwa meme
John they-him-saw by me
‘John was seen by me.’
The sentence in (21b) qualifies as a passive to the extent that the patient is in subject
position before the verb and the agent is expressed in a prepositional phrase following
the verb. But the verb exhibits semantically empty third person plural agreement and
object agreement with the patient. (It is tempting to speculate in this latter case that the
passive in (21b) derives historically from an object topicalization from an impersonal
third plural active of the sort illustrated in (5b) and (6).)


However, I don't know of any languages that would have 'true' passives (in particular where the agent can be expressed overtly, because if it cannot then it could be tempting to analyze such constructions as unspecified/implicit subject constructions rather than 'passives') with the subject marked with accusative case.
One could imagine a situation where an unspecified subject construction is converted into a 'passive voice' with an optional agent phrase (according to Wikipedia, something like this is happening in Finnish) e.g. as a result of the influence of another language.
(Probably one could call the cases 'agentive' and 'patientive' rather that 'nominative' and 'accusative' if the 'accusative' case were used in case of some other intransitive verbs such as 'die' (as it usually happens in active languages), not only the intransitive verbs which are formed from the respective transitive ones by the passive voice.)

Quote:

Thanks! I thought of it when I realized that if the distinction between subjective and objective pronouns was lost that the English passive voice would become morphosyntactically ambiguous.


Then one would say e.g. 'him bites a dog' and 'him is bitten by a dog'; the distinction isn't made on nouns already. But it's still far from marking passive subjects with accusative.

_________________
uciekajcie od światów konających


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 11:09 am 
Avisaru
Avisaru

Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 4:22 pm
Posts: 370
Location: UK
Ah, I think I see. Two objects are required for the ditransitive verb "give" and one of them has to be indirect, but it needn't be marked with the adposition "to". Whether it is or not depends on the word order.
Miekko wrote:
didn't you hear [Ø 1] or see [me 1]?
*didn't you hear [Ø 1] or give [me 1] icecream
didn't you hear me or give me icecream?
didn't you hear me or give icecream to me?
*didn't you hear or give icecream me?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 180 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group