dragonprince99 wrote:I think I understand this. But a quick question about dechticaetiative systems:
I have the sentence:
I taught math to John.
which, if I understand correctly, would be:
I (agent) taught math (theme) to John (receiver.)
but if I have the sentence:
I taught math.
would 'math' be the patient of the sentence, or would it still be treated as the theme? (in other words, would it be treated as the accusative, or the dechticaetiative?)
Thanks!
I meant to answer dragonprince99's question long ago, but I'll just repeat it now:
In the example given, "math" would indeed shift roles within the PRT scheme; it would be the theme (T) of the first sentence (ditransitive), but the patient (P) of the second (monotransitive). If the language used had, say, accusative-dative alignment (in which P and T are treated the same, and R differently), "math" would be in the accusative in both sentences, while "John" would be in the dative. (In terms of conventional English grammar, "math" is the direct object of both sentences, while "John" is the indirect object).
On the other hand, if the language used was accusative-dechticaetiative (P and R are treated the same, and T differently), "math" would change case between the two examples; it would be dechticaetiative in the first example (with "John" in the accusative), but accusative in the second; indeed, it is this very shift that characterizes languages of this type. (Dechticaetiative languages are also known as primary/secondary object languages (as opposed to direct/indirect object). In these terms, "John" in the first example and "math" in the second are both considered primary objects, while "math" in the first example is a secondary object; this might make the distinction easier to understand.)
imploder wrote:Maybe just a silly question:
What is the difference between S and T? They are not agent, not patient, just something that in some state or change expressed by the verb. Can you give some examples of them being contrastive?
I've read your new thread in C&C as well, but I'm still not sure exactly what you're asking; I thought that Sander's initial post explained the terms, as he used them, fairly clearly. (So did his diagrams -- once I knew what I was looking at.
)
S (subject/experiencer) is the single argument of an intransitive verb; as Nuntar said in the other thread, the term "experiencer" is often used because the action is experienced or performed by a single person, rather than performed
to something else. Depending on the morphosyntactic alignment of the language in question, it may be treated the same as an agent (nominative-accusative), a patient (ergative-absolutive), either (active), or neither (tripartite).
T (theme) is one of the two non-agent arguments of a ditransitive sentence, referring not to the recipient of action (R), but the thing received. (The term, as used here, has
nothing to do with the use of "theme" to mean what I sentence is
about; for this reason (in addition to its many other meanings) I suspect that it's a rather unfortunate choice.) In an accusative language like English, the theme
is considered to be a patient; it's the dechticaetiative languages that treat it differently.
In terms of "traditional" English grammar (i.e., what most of us learned in school), we usually speak in terms of subject, direct objects, and indirect object. Since English is accusative-dative, here S is the "subject" of an intransitive sentence, A is the "subject" of a transitive sentence, P and T are the direct object of a transitive sentence (mono- or ditransitive), and R is the indirect object of a ditransitive sentence. For that reason, I don't understand your request to "contrast" S and T; aren't a(n intransitive)subject and a direct object contrasting anyway?
I'm sorry to be recapping Sander's description, and probably repeating everything you already know; I suspect it's a sign of my own confusion.
****
I should add, however, that I still find the topic or morphosyntactic alignment an interesting one, and I' m glad to find that this thread was preserved.
In addition, I would like to follow up on my long-ago post above by noting that I have resolved (largely as a result of this thread) that if and/or when I resume work on my main conlang, Chusole, it and its relatives will be no longer accusative-dative, but accusative-dechticaetiative
; the idea really appeals to me, and I think that the switch will be neither inappropriate nor difficult to make for the languages in question (and I've already had some thoughts for the associated changes that will be made in terms of word order, semantics, and other issues). In addition, I ought to cast a more creative eye on my other prospective conlangs as well...
p@,
Glenn