zompist bboard

Are all verbs in languages described as Active-Stative (a/k/a Fluid-S languages) selected by semantic criteria? I guess that would mean such a language would be a pure "active-stative" without a split in mSA. Or, are natlangs of that type actually a combination of Active-stative verbs in one category and in another category verbs which are split-s. Split-s meaning the agentive and patientive reading of the verb is lexically or non-semantically selected.

I thought this thread would be about Modern Standard Arabic and am ashamed that I was wrong.

Nessari wrote:I thought this thread would be about Modern Standard Arabic and am ashamed that I was wrong.

Heh, I was thinking exactly the same thing. Although I am more surprised than ashamed.

I don't know the answer to this question (though I'd note some terminological ambiguity - I've seen 'active-stative' refer to fluid-S, split-S OR fluid-S, or only to split/fluid-Ss where the split is related to volition).

However, I'd wager the answer is "no". I wager this because in linguistics the answer to the question "are all Xs always Y?" is almost always "no".

If memory serves, it is unattested for all verbs to have a fluid S in any single language. There are virtually always at least some verbs that lexically require an agent-marked S, or some that require a patient-marked S, or some of each. Even halfway-pure split-S and fluid-S languages are rarer than languages with large sets of verbs in each category. Mixture is the more normal state.

And as far as I can recall, this pattern extends to ergativity in general... it is common for languages we'd call "ergative" to have at least a few verbs that require an agent-marked S and/or a few that optionally allow one.


As for the terminology, Sal is correct that "active-stative" can mean different things to different writers, but it is common for it to be used for both fluid and split S. On Wikipedia, and in e.g. Describing Morphosyntax, you see split-S and fluid-S treated as subtypes of active-stative. The fact that those types are so often mixed up together is (IMO) a good reason for sticking to this usage.

As per the previous two guys, although I'm not familiar with any specific active-stative languages, it's always a matter of degree; there is never a "completely" active-stative language; idiosyncracies are always there.