On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 at 23:58, Reuben Staley <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Hello friends, > > In one of our recent chats about our collaborative language Sajem Tan, a > question concerning our syntax and how we should categorise specific > features came up. We have elected to search for guidance from those with > more experience. I will now attempt to describe our problem. > > The following is a standard Sajem Tan sentence, in OVS structure: > > (1) "nëcüm kygykum viţitâ" > > nëcüm kygyk -šo viţit -â > grain eat CONT bird PL > > "birds are eating grain" > > In the passive voice, however, the subject is placed before the verb: > > (2) "vazöt dëgemfêsun dac" > > vazöt dëgem -fê -sun dec > cat choose PFV PASS IND.REC > > "the cat was chosen" > > There is, however, one more structure to go over, the one that has > caused this intention in the first place: > > (3) "kemönmon sê daţnycfê" > > kemön -mon sê daţnyc -fê > deer group.of 1s.ANIM encounter PFV > > "I encounter a group of deer" > > Notice how this uses the same subject-before-verb pattern of (2). In > fact, if we were to add another arguement to (2), it would follow the > OSV pattern established by (3). > > Back on topic, why does the subject come before the verb in (3) anyway? > "Encountering" something surely does not constitute a passive verb. Surely not, as verbs are not inherently passive or active; they may however, be inherently non-agentive. > So far, we have referred to verbs like daţnyc as "experiencer verbs" > although the concept seems to be unrelated to how other sources describe > experiencers. What differentiates an experiencer verb in Sajem Tan from > a regular verb is that the subject of an experiencer verb takes no > direct part in the action described while still being a the subject for > the clause. Daţnyc is considered to be this way it describes the action > of stumbling upon something due to happenstance. So it's non-volitional. I see no particular problem with just calling those "experience verbs". > With all of this in mind, I propose the question of how these > "experiencers" should be categorized. It seems to me that sentences with > experiencer verbs are not in the active voice like in (1) or in the > passive voice like in (2). I'm not sure I'm ready to call it the middle > voice because although there are definitions describing middle voice as > simply a verb where the subject has elements of agent and patient, some > also include words like "reflexive" or "intransitive" which are > definitely not relevant here. If this is their "natural", default state, without the application of any formal voice-altering syntactic or morphological alterations, then they are in active voice. Now, if you can *also* say ?"kemönmon daţnycfê sê" to mean something like "I found the deer (on purpose)", then maybe that experiencer construction is best called a (syntactic) passive. But if not, if the OSV construction is actually inherently required by that verb, then "voice" is the wrong way to be thinking about this. Because their active forms kind of *look* like passives on the surface, you might call them "deponent" verbs (stealing terminology from Latin grammar for a similar phenomenon). But that's not terribly descriptive; it hides the fact that there is a semantic basis for the classification. Is it possible to say ?"vazöt sê dëgemfêsun dac" to mean "the cat was chosen by me"? Whether either or both of those constructions are grammatical (under the supplied interpretations) will determine what I personally think is the best analysis. -l.