Danial Andreasson wrote:

> > It apparently also shows what we have already seen in Mohawk - that
> > active marking has little to do with whether a verb is actually active
> > or not: I remember an earlier posting from Marcus in which he told us
> > that numerals in Ch. are active verbs!  Well, what I would expect from
> > an active language that treats numerals as verbs is that they are
> > stative. But apparently, I expect way too much of an active language.
>Well, if I've analyzed Chickasaw correctly -- which I have of course :)
>-- then my conclusion for marking quantificationals (i.e. "numerals")
>as Agents is that they are seen as controlled, since the basic motivation
>for the Chickasaw agreement marking is control. Hence it doesn't matter
>if they are events or states of whatever.

My own conclusion about Chickasaw is that the marking is determined by
event vs. state, control vs. non-control, and individual vs. stage level
predication. Not to mention the occassional structural requirements, but
you functionalists don't like to hear that. :)

Marcus Smith

"Sit down before fact as a little child,
be prepared to give up every preconceived notion,
follow humbly wherever and to whatsoever abysses Nature leads,
or you shall learn nothing."
                -- Thomas Huxley