Roger Mills wrote:
> to be several papers available in pdf); I've never seen it but doubt 
> strongly they would have used the "trigger" term.  That term seems to 
> have arisen relatively recently (IIRC in one of our earlier discussion 
> of this, someone cited a(the) first or at least early use of it), and 
> AFAIK hasn't been widely accepted in the field.

Thanks - it's been my impression also that the term "trigger" (in this 
usage) is (a) relatively recent, and (b) that it hasn't been widely 
accepted in the field.

> The idea of analyzing the various Formosan and Philippine verb systems 
> with "passives" seems also to have fallen out of favor; 

passives _and_ applicatives, I think would be needed

> most of what 
> I've read calls them "focus" systems-- active voice now --> agent 
> focus;  passive now --> patient focus; dative/benefactive passive --> 
> dat./ben. focus; etc. etc. Also, instrumental focus and location focus-- 
> there may be 1 or 2 more, but that's about it.

Yep - the feature sometimes called 'trigger'*, has also been called 
'subject', 'topic' or 'focus' by others. This has not helped. But your 
observation is interesting in that it has seemed to me that the _conlang 
'trigger' system_ as given on
is, in fact, an interesting conlang slant on giving focus to a 
particular element in the sentence

> RB:
> But at some stage, analyses using 'trigger' terminology did occur.
> However, from what I have been able to gather, it would seem that not
> all 'trigger' explanations were the same. My feeling is the Conlang
> Trigger Languages developed from an attempt to make sense of these
> explanations.
> RM: That's quite likely.

*I have certainly seen the term 'trigger' used to denote the affix 
attached to the verb. This to me seems quite a bizarre usage.

Frustra fit per plura quod potest
fieri per pauciora.
[William of Ockham]