<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body>
I don't think there's anything wrong with "actor-holding -
undergoer-holding", but why not simply "agentive – patientive"?<br>
<br>
The term pair "actor/undergoer" was coined by Foley & Van Valin
(1984: §2.1) in order to have a way to generalize over the following
kinds of situations:<br>
<br>
<i>Colin (A) killed the taipan (U).</i><br>
<i>The avalanche (A) crushed the cottage (U).</i><br>
<i>The dog (A) sensed the earthquake (U).</i><br>
<br>
Van Valin also used "Actor" and "Undergoer" for two types of Lakota
single-argument verbs, but it is well-known that there's a wide
range of ways in which languages can have multiple valency
constructions for single-argument verbs.<br>
<br>
For example, Russian has some single-argument verbs that take an
Accusative argument (<i>menja tošnit</i> 'I.ACC feel sick') and
others that take a Dative argument (<i>mne nezdorovitsja</i> 'I.DAT
feel sick'). Are both these valency classes "undergoer-holding"? Or
maybe "actor-holding" because experiencers are sentient and
therefore more like agents?<br>
<br>
So for the stereotypical subdivision of single-argument verbs
("active – inactive" in Klimov 1977), maybe "agentive – patientive"
is the best choice?<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Martin<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 12.05.21 um 12:24 schrieb Christian
Lehmann:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:39ec677e-81d1-0b25-0476-44bf7f217c44@Uni-Erfurt.De">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
The only or direct actant of an intransitive verb may be its actor
(<i>run</i>) or its undergoer (<i>die</i>). This may be taken to
be a feature of the verb's valency. There are then two valency
classes of intransitive verbs. I know of the following terms for
these:<br>
<br>
active - inactive (Klimov)<br>
agentive - non-agentive<br>
unergative - unaccusative (Perlmutter)<br>
<br>
All of these pairs have terminological or conceptual problems
(which I can name if desired). I have therefore been looking for
better terms. I had called them<br>
actor-oriented - undergoer-oriented.<br>
However, I need the term 'oriented' in verbal grammar in a
different sense, so I have to replace these. Currently, I call
them<br>
actor-holding - undergoer-holding<br>
Not particularly elegant, are they?<br>
<br>
Are there good terms on the linguistic market (of the past two
centuries) for what is meant by the above? Or failing this,
brilliant neologisms?<br>
<br>
Grateful for suggestions,<br>
Christian<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<p style="font-size:90%">Prof. em. Dr. Christian Lehmann<br>
Rudolfstr. 4<br>
99092 Erfurt<br>
<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Deutschland</span></p>
<table style="font-size:80%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Tel.:</td>
<td>+49/361/2113417</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>E-Post:</td>
<td><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:christianw_lehmann@arcor.de"
moz-do-not-send="true">christianw_lehmann@arcor.de</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Web:</td>
<td><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.christianlehmann.eu"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.christianlehmann.eu</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
Lingtyp mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Martin Haspelmath
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
Deutscher Platz 6
D-04103 Leipzig
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.shh.mpg.de/employees/42385/25522">https://www.shh.mpg.de/employees/42385/25522</a></pre>
</body>
</html>