Passivity as a transition

[X99Lynx at aol.com]

Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen <jer at cphling.dk> wrote:

<<I'd say the cases I have seen of ergativity in Indic and Iranian languages
so clearly reflect underlying/earlier passive circumlocutions that
controversy is absurd.>>

On 7/29/99 2:52:29 AM, vidynath at math.ohio-state.edu responded:

<<No! I have already pointed out the problem of distinguishing resultatives
and passives. The ta-adjective is resultative in Vedic...

Speyer goes on to note a:ru:d.ha has active meaning more commonly.
This is not how we expect the passive to behave. But for resultative, it is
understandable.  The ergative patterning is based on pragmatics. But in a
culture that considers it more worthy of note whether a man is mounted on a
horse or a vehicle than whether a horse or a vehicle is carrying someone, it
makes sense to use a:ru:d.ha in the active sense.>>

Here on the "accusative and ergative languages" forum, I believe these
exchanges started with someone taking issue with the idea that 'passivity'
was not (necessarily) the origin of 'ergativity'.    Having read Larry
Trask's handling of that issue in his Historical Linguistics, it seems that
"passivity" as the ONLY origin is quite out of the question.

It's interesting to compare W.P. Lehmann's approach to ergativity in his
Historical Linguistics textbook.  The accusative versus ergative is only
brought up once - as background for the Contentive Typology distinction
between 'govermental' (accusative OR ergative) and
'active'/'active-stative'/'class' languages.  This background is given to
illustrate the use of Typological frameworks for historical purposes (e.g.,
postprepositions in Hittite, Indic and English and the 'pur'/'ignis'
(animate/inanimate) distinction) and evidence of an Active residue in modern
and historical languages.

While dismissing any further discussion of ergativity, Lehmann brings up an
interesting point.  He says, "While the method of indicating subjects and
objects differ in accusative and ergative languages, both are comparable in
distinguishing subjects and objects when pertinent, that is, with transitive
verbs... viewed as essential in communicating....  The subject of an
intransitive verb does not require a special form since it does not need to
be distinguished from an object."

This brings up the issue of what a truly "passive" language would be like,
putting aside animate versus inanimate.  I think the presumption that the
intransitive cannot take a passive form (of sorts) may not be correct when
words are in transition.  Verbs turn into nouns.  In Homer, the players are
sometimes 'moved' by their actions.  It is clear that in "the killing was
made by Hector" it is the action that is governing the structure, even though
there is a helper verb in there.  (Something of the same happens in saying
"Hector killed", as in "Speed kills" - it can be interpreted as a transitive
(kills someone) disguished as an intransitive.  But the sense definitely
changes and there is a reason to think of it as intransitive.  cf., "X rules")

Going back to the qoute above: <<in a culture that considers it more worthy
of note whether a man is mounted on a horse or a vehicle than whether a horse
or a vehicle is carrying someone, it makes sense to use a:ru:d.ha in the
active sense.>>

The third approach of course is to focus on the riding or carrying.

In Greek, we can see a related development that demonstartes verbs becoming
nouns.  "Konis"/"konia" (dust) in Homer is the basis of the idea of raising
dust - "koniontes pedioio", galloping in a cloud of dust (in the Illiad
always relating to horses, later to armies.)  "Euru konisouson pedion",
running away in dusty (hasty) flight.  But also in the Illiad, the jump is
made to "raising dust" as a metaphor for haste, effort or service.  The maids
make Priam's bed, "epei storesan lechos enkoneousai" (pres part.) > in haste.
(Always with another verb, so that it is NOT the action itself, but a true,
separate element.)

So "enkoneo" will later come to mean in haste.  "Akoniti" will mean after
Homer, without effort.  And "diakonia" will become a common name for a
servant or service in general - literally "through dust" but actually
"through raising dust" making haste or effort.

Shouldn't we conclude that before "raising dust" > effort> servant could
acquire the indications of a noun and an accusative subject, it had to go
through a "passive" stage.  E.g. "raising dust was done by Mabel."  ("Mabel
was raising dust" inflected as a participle, would mean something different -
it is part of the action and not yet an "object.")

Before there was something called a "rider" there was something called
"riding".  The action may have prempted the object and became an object in
itself.  "John was riding."> "Riding was what John did."> "John was a rider."

As a language develops, it is clear that verbs (processes, regular actions)
become nouns.  E.g., raising dust becomes service or a servant.   While that
is happening, isn't passivity also a natural thing to happen somewhere along
the line?  The absence of an established morphology/inflection for the new
noun means there appears to be no subject.  Couldn't to some degree that
account for the absence of a designated subject in some ergative structures?

Regards,
Steve Long