Four questions about the Agentivity Hierarchy

[Particles the Greek]

In Algonquian languages, when you have multiple third person referents, one must be foregrounded by using PROXIMATE markings, and the others are backgrounded by using the OBVIATIVE.

1. Does this also hold for the (admittedly rare) situations where you have multiple second person referents?

2. Is it reasonable to see in the proximate-obviative distinction the beginnings of a nom/acc or erg/abs distinction, which can later be generalised from third person referents to everything else?

[Zaarin]

I'm by no means an expert on Algonquian languages, but they are among the Native American languages which I have casually surveyed so perhaps my answers may be somewhat helpful.

1. I would expect not. The Algonquian languages, like many North American languages, distinguish two sets of third person pronouns, the proximate and obviative (the latter often called "fourth person" pronouns). Some languages distinguish inclusive and exclusive second person pronouns, but I don't think the two sets are related as many languages around the world have one but not the other.

2. Again, I would expect the answer to be no. Many North American languages have third/fourth person pronouns as I said, some are nom/acc, some are erg/abs, and some are something else (like Nez Perce's tripartite alignment).

This is just my opinion from casual observation, however, so take it with a grain of salt.

[----]

Some language in Africa has obviative v. proximate second person, I think. But none of the Algonquian languages do.

[roninbodhisattva]

Some language in Africa has obviative v. proximate second person, I think. But none of the Algonquian languages do.

Source?

[Particles the Greek]

Is it possible for a language to do both of:

1. Prohibit inanimates from being treated as the agent of a verb
2. Express verbs of perception as the thing being perceived being the agent and it "instilling" the perception in the patient, e.g. "I see X" -> "X causes visual perception in me", or whatever?

I strongly suspect the answer is "no", but no doubt one of you knows of at least one counterexample. (Maybe one of Zomp's conlangs?) In such a case, how is "I see the X" expressed, where X is inanimate?

[Salmoneus]

I'll spare you the Blackadder scene.
Just to clarify, however: you don't need to start a new topic every time you make a post.

[Particles the Greek]

I'll spare you the Blackadder scene.

?

Just to clarify, however: you don't need to start a new topic every time you make a post.

OK, fair enough.

I should also clarify: My second question was intended in a conlanging context, not a natlanging one, which may have confused some people.

[Salmoneus]

I'll spare you the Blackadder scene.

?

Blackadder: Right Baldrick, let's try again shall we? This is called adding. If I have two beans, and then I add two more beans, what do I have?

Baldrick: Some beans.

Blackadder: Yes... and no. Let's try again shall we? I have two beans, then I add two more beans. What does that make?

Baldrick: A very small casserole.

Blackadder: Baldrick, the ape creatures of the Indus have mastered this. Now try again. One, two, three, four. So how many are there?

Baldrick: Three.

Blackadder: What?

Baldrick: ...and that one.

Blackadder: Three and that one. So if I add that one to the three what will I have?

Baldrick: Oh. Some beans.

Blackadder: Yes. To you Baldrick, the Renaissance was just something that happened to other people, wasn't it?



- sorry, it's just what springs to mind when I see someone adding two to two and failing to make a pile of four.

[----]

Some language in Africa has obviative v. proximate second person, I think. But none of the Algonquian languages do.

Source?

for which claim? I'm assuming the first one. Edgar A. Gregerson says the Moru-Ma'di languages do. I can't find any examples of it though.

[2+3 clusivity]

Some languages distinguish inclusive and exclusive second person pronouns

Source or example? I know there are a few claimed to have such a distinction, but most if not all have been refuted in articles such as J. Horst's which is on the Clusivity page of wikipedia.

Edgar A. Gregerson says the Moru-Ma'di languages do. I can't find any examples of it though.

If you can find some, that would great.


If I may, I'd like to add another question: I know several langauges have 2>1>3 on the animacy scale rather than 1>2>3. I cannot remember or find an example now. Does anyone know of such languages or language families?

[cromulant]

I know several langauges have 2>1>3 on the animacy scale rather than 1>2>3. I cannot remember or find an example now. Does anyone know of such languages or language families?

Hixkaryana, Ojibwe.

[Zaarin]

Some languages distinguish inclusive and exclusive second person pronouns

Source or example? I know there are a few claimed to have such a distinction, but most if not all have been refuted in articles such as J. Horst's which is on the Clusivity page of wikipedia.

I said second, I meant first.