Argunent about subject - object, could you shed some light?

[Karutoshika]

We (my friend and I) have an argument about whether one word in a sentence is a subject or object.
If any of you are professional linguists (there are many, i know ) could you shed some lite on that problem?


>> >> >> .... (from our previous conversation)

>> >> > I am a bit puzzled by your answer though, because passive voice is all about
>> >> > the *subject* being the receiver of the action, so it should actually be
>> >> > "I(subj) being-eaten(verb)" where "I" is a subject (not an object),
>> >> > and you should decide on some way to transform "eat" to "being-eaten".
>> >> > At least that is what I would think, being very strict.

>> >> I must disagree. If subject is receiver, he automatically transforms
>> >> into an object, because he is "being done", not "doing something".
>> >> Different languages just address it differently.

>> > I think we should get the definitions straight in the first place.
>> > Be careful not to confuse *grammatical* object with the *semantical*
>> > receiver of the action!

>> I still think I'm right
>> I think we should ask professionals, for example on linguistics forums.
>> Is that okay?

> Well, I also think I'm right, so we'd better have an expert opinion. Who
> knows, we may be both wrong Go ahead and ask

The point here that if the same subject becomes an object it automatically becomes receiver of an action, just like in japanese. Well, that is just what I think, I'm no linguiest and I may be wrong

Example of sentences:
I(subj) eat(verb) = I'm eating
I(obj) eat(verb) = I'm being eaten

So, what do you guys think?

[Bob Johnson]

Example of sentences:
I(subj) eat(verb) = I'm eating
I(obj) eat(verb) = I'm being eaten

Object is a grammatical role, not semantic. In English, the second sentence has to be "eat me" for the pronoun to be an object. In "I am eaten" the pronoun is still a subject, though it has become a semantic patient with an unstated agent.

[Mr. Z]

I wrote a long answer with examples, but I lost it. Oh well. Bob is right.

[Miekko]

This is somewhat language specific, because not all languages have a proper passive "transformation", yet may have forms that are referred to as passives anyway.

When there's a proper passive, what was subject in the corresponding active sentence is demoted or omitted, while what was object is promoted to subject;

Whoever thinks they remain the same is confusing subject and object with the theta roles (agent, patient, etc).

Then again, as mention, in languages such as Finnish, you have a passive that doesn't promote the object, but does delete the subject, so the object remains the object.

[Salmoneus]

It's important to get the definitions sorted in the first place. You need to avoid confusing the grammatical "object" with the semantic "receiver of the action".

"Subject" and "object" are grammatical roles. They are typically assigned to, respectively, doers and things-done-to, but not always. In English, for instance, when a tree reflects light into my eyes, I say that I see the tree - I am the subject, the tree is the object, even though the tree is sitting by happily and I'm not doing anything to it. And then in many languages, the assignments can sometimes be altered. English has a "passive voice" where the thing that would normally be the object becomes the subject instead.

[Karutoshika]

Hm, then it seems that I was wrong aftaral. Never the less the truth has prevailed

I have to read more about the subject then.

Thank you for all the replies.

Also a little question: do you by any change know where I can find comprehensive article about agent, patient and the third thing, I forgot which is it and how it's related to grammatical obj and subj.

[Jipí]

Voice?

[Miekko]

You shouldn't do the mistake now of thinking that
transitive, active verb -> subject = agent, object = patient
intransitive verb -> subject = experiencer (or whatever term you've run into)
transitive, passive verb -> subject = patient

There are other roles that may very well occur in these slots as well, e.g. some would analyze
"this key opens any lock" as having an instrument and an object, and no agent.

Finally, some languages make this even worse by using the designation "agent" for the demoted argument, e.g. Swedish does that.

[Kereb]

aftaral

[Alces]

Also a little question: do you by any change know where I can find comprehensive article about agent, patient and the third thing, I forgot which is it and how it's related to grammatical obj and subj.

If you search for 'semantic role' or 'theta role', you can find information about that. Here's an article I just found which seems comprehensive enough. As you can see, there are a lot more roles than just agent and patient, although languages usually only distinguish a few grammatically, and many of them will be indicated by prepositions or something.

[Miekko]

Also a little question: do you by any change know where I can find comprehensive article about agent, patient and the third thing, I forgot which is it and how it's related to grammatical obj and subj.

If you search for 'semantic role' or 'theta role', you can find information about that. Here's an article I just found which seems comprehensive enough. As you can see, there are a lot more roles than just agent and patient, although languages usually only distinguish a few grammatically, and many of them will be indicated by prepositions or something.

Indicating by preposition = distinguishing grammatically

Many of them will be conflated in some spots, and others conflated in other spots is an important point. As I showcased already, some instruments are subjects in English, others are marked by a preposition, etc. This tends to be rather fluid.