Dative Subjects (was: Re: Genetic Descent)

[Leo A. Connolly]

Rick Mc Callister wrote:

>         I'm not an expert but to refer to <<A Carlos>> as a subject strikes
> me as patently wrong. <<A Carlos>> is obviously an indirect object. If
> modern linguists are declaring it a subject, I wanna know why.
>         Is it because with these constructions, the subject tends to be
> inanimate?

No.  The problem is that to varying degrees in different languages,
these Experiencers have some of the properties of subjects, even though
they are morphologically objects.  In Spanish and Italian, the only
significant subject property is positional: they normally occupy the
preverbal "subject" slot.  But the syntacticians are interested in
universal grammar, and in some languages the situatiin is quite
different.  In Icelandic, these oblique "subjects" control reflexives
and can undergo "subject-to-object raising", retaining their original
case in the process.  Most verbs with such NPs also have a nominative NP
which cannot occupy subject position or be raised; these nominatives
control only verb agreement, and then not person, only for number, and
optionally at that.  Most (not all) ergative languages follow this
pattern: with transitive verbs, the ergative NP has most of the
syntactic subject properties, while the "Absolutive" (another name for
nominative) NP controls only verb agreement.  In Tagalog there's a 50-50
split in many senetnces, with subject properties about equally divided.

So that's the reason.  I understand the problem, but I disagree sharply
with their conclusion: the morphological subject is the *only* subject
as far as I'm concerned, and the "oblique subjects" that through their
weight around in these languages are simply the ones which rank highest
in the hierarchy of "deep cases" i.e. semantic roles -- the ones which
in some sense "should" be the subject (and in English most typically
are).  We formerly had such things -- think "methinks" -- an object in
preverbal position not controlling verb agreement.  We have since solved
our problem by making _me_ into a true subject _I_ -- with no change in
meaning!  Spanish might do that too some day, but no sign of its
happening yet.

>         The verb is not passive either, however. <<Libro>> is the subject
> and actor.

Actor?  That's a technical term in Role & Reference Grammar, but the RRG
folks would say here that _libros_ is an "Undergoer".  After all, it
isn't doing anything.