Print

Print


----- Original Message -----
From: "Andreas Johansson" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 10:47 AM
Subject: Re: Help in Determining Asha'ille Typology


> Quoting "Thomas R. Wier" <[log in to unmask]>:
>
> > Quoting Andreas Johansson <[log in to unmask]>:
> >
> > > > 1) I eat food.
> > > > 2) I run.
> > > > 3) I fall.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > What would we call a language that marks "I" from (1) the same as "I"
in
> > > (3), and "I" in (2) the same as "food" in (1)? Beyond weird, that is.
> >
> > This would still be a split-S language.  Split-S languages are
> > defined, in contrast to fluid-S languages, by the fact that verbs
> > simply subcategorize for whether the single argument patterns as
> > the NP-1 of transitives or NP-2 of transitives.  It is also
> > characteristic of such languages that many verbs take the unexpected
> > marking, such as patientive for run or agentive for fall.
>
> I didn't state my question clearly enough to exclude the possibility of a
> language with semantic marking. You could have language that uses
>
> I:PAT fall
>
> for a voluntary falling and
>
> I:AGT fall
>
> for involuntary. (Case names assigned to make sense with transitives.)

Wouldn't it be the other way round?  I mean, as far as I can gather, the
patient is the thing that something happens to, and the agent is what causes
it to happed.

So, for instance

I.PAT fall

could be said to mean 'I am being caused to fall', whereas

I.AGT fall

would be said to mean 'I am causing myself to fall'.

If the other way around, using the terms 'Agent' and 'Patient', I think,
would be unsatisfactory.
>                                                  Andreas
>