<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="overflow-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;">Hi Christian,<div><span lang="EN-GB">In talking about what are sometimes discussed as voice or transitivity-marking affixes in Tagalog, Himmelman (2004: 1481) argues that the affixes “change the orientation of a given base in such a way that it may be used to refer to one of the participants involved in the state of affairs denoted by the base </span><span lang="EN-US">…</span><span lang="EN-GB"> In this view, -<i>um-</i> is an actor orienting infix which derives from a base such as <i>tango</i> ‘nod, nodding in assent’ a word <i>tumango</i> which could be glossed as ‘one who nods, nodder’. This expression no longer directly denotes the action of nodding, but rather the participant who nods. That is, in the Tagalog clause </span><span lang="EN-US">…</span><span lang="EN-US"> </span><i><span lang="EN-GB">tumango ang unggo </span></i><span lang="EN-GB">‘The monkey nodded in assent’, both <i>tumango</i> and <i>unggo</i> refer to the same entity. Imitating the equational structure of this clause it could be rendered as ‘nodd-er in assent (was) the monkey’ </span><span lang="EN-US">…</span><span lang="EN-GB"> Note, however, that Tagalog voice affixes are not nominalising in a morphosyntactic sense, since they do not change the syntactic category of the base . . .”. He considers them derivational, not inflectional affixes, as they apply equally well to action words and object words: </span><span lang="EN-US">“… </span><span lang="EN-GB">there are no productive inflectional paradigms for voice, as suggested by the commonly used ‘paradigmatic’ examples in the literature. Instead, derivations from all kinds of bases are only partially predictable on the basis of their semantics and exhibit a large number of idiosyncrasies, which again suggests derivation rather than inflection.”</span></div><span style="font-family: -webkit-standard; font-size: medium;"></span><div><br></div><div>So he has used orientation in this way. Not sure if you can see any parallels in the structure and use of the affixes.</div><div><br></div><div>All the best,</div><div>Randy<br><div>
<meta charset="UTF-8"><div dir="auto" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;"><div dir="auto" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;"><div dir="auto" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;"><div dir="auto" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;"><div dir="auto" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;"><div dir="auto" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;"><div dir="auto" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;"><div dir="auto" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;"><div><div><span style="font-size: 14px;">——</span></div><div><span style="font-size: 14px;">Professor Randy J. LaPolla</span><span style="font-family: Verdana, Helvetica, Arial; font-size: 13.333333015441895px; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">（罗仁地)</span><span style="font-size: 14px;">, PhD FAHA </span></div><div><span style="font-size: 14px;">Center for Language Sciences</span></div><div><span style="font-size: 14px;">Institute for Advanced Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences</span></div><div><span style="font-size: 14px;">Beijing Normal University at Zhuhai</span></div><div><span style="font-size: 14px;">A302, Muduo Building, #18 Jinfeng Road, Zhuhai City</span><span style="font-size: 14px;">, Guangdong</span><span style="font-size: 14px;">, China</span></div><div><span style="font-size: 14px;"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size: 14px;"><a href="https://randylapolla.info">https://randylapolla.info</a></span></div><div><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">ORCID ID:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><span style="color: rgb(73, 74, 76); background-color: white;"><a href="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6100-6196">https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6100-6196</a> </span></span> </div><div><span style="font-size: 14px;"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size: 15px;">邮编：519087</span><br style="font-size: 15px;"><span style="font-size: 15px;">广东省珠海市唐家湾镇金凤路18号木铎楼A302</span><br style="font-size: 15px;"><span style="font-size: 15px;">北京师范大学珠海校区</span><br style="font-size: 15px;"><span style="font-size: 15px;">人文和社会科学高等研究院</span><br style="font-size: 15px;"><span style="font-size: 15px;">语言科学研究中心 </span></div></div><div><br></div></div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>On 28 Dec 2023, at 1:52 AM, Johanna B Nichols <johanna@berkeley.edu> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div><div dir="ltr"><div>I use "ambitransitive" instead of "ambivalent" -- it's unambiguous. "Flexible" is also used in this sense, but already has too wide a range of meanings.</div><div><br></div><div>I agree, ±oriented and ±directed aren't great. A few years ago, searching through a thesaurus for possibilities, I tried out "bearing(s)", which is a good replacement for "direction" or "orientation" but not for directed/undirected, etc. (Well, we have "rudderless", but that's too heavy on the connotations, and anyway no related antonym.) I think the same problem comes up with anything based on "Janus". Maybe "steered/unsteered" and "steering"?</div><div><br></div><div>Alternatively, we could probably turn to an Oceanic language for a precise, well-elaborated set of relevant nautical terms.</div><div><br></div><div>Johanna<br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Dec 27, 2023 at 4:05 AM Christian Lehmann <<a href="mailto:christian.lehmann@uni-erfurt.de">christian.lehmann@uni-erfurt.de</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><u></u>
<div>
Dear colleagues,<br>
<br>
sorry for my exaggerated preoccupation with adequate terminology. I
have to name the Cabecar (Chibchan) verb root classes, but am short
of linguistic terms. Verbs form voice stems for conjugation in
active and middle voice. Middle voice involves a suffix for all
verbs; active voice involves a suffix in one root class.<br>
<br>
The criteria of the classification are:<br>
- Does the root have an active voice? If not, it is a medial root (a
Classicist would call it <i>deponens</i>).<br>
- Does the active voice stem involve a suffix (viz. the
causativizer)? If not, I call the root preliminarily 'directed'.<br>
- Is the root transitive or intransitive in active voice?<br>
<br>
These are the classes:<br>
1. Directed roots: these directly conjugate in active voice:<br>
a. intransitive roots: in active voice, the verb is
intransitive (e.g. 'laugh');<br>
b. transitive roots: in active voice, the verb is transitive
(e.g. 'bend').<br>
2. Undirected roots: these do not directly conjugate in active
voice:<br>
a. medial roots: these only conjugate in the middle voice,
and the valency of this voice stem is intransitive (e.g. 'stay');<br>
b. ambivalent roots: these alternatively take on the middle
voice suffix and then are intransitive, or they take on the
causativizer and then are transitive (e.g. 'melt').<br>
<br>
These four classes work satisfactorily. What I am unhappy with is
the names 'directed', 'undirected' and 'ambivalent'. The idea
underlying 'directed - undirected' is that undirected verb roots
have no base valency; this is, instead, conferred to them by the
voice suffix. The idea behind 'ambivalent' is that these roots have
either valency depending on the voice suffix that they are provided
with.<br>
<br>
I would prefer 'oriented - non-oriented' to 'directed -
nondirected'; but this term pair is taken by the contrast between
verbal constructions of the sort (English examples:) <i>actor/who
acts</i> vs. <i>action/that he acts</i>. And 'ambivalent' is a
very ambivalent term; a more specific one (like 'Janus-headed') may
be more mnemonic.<br>
<br>
Have you seen appropriate term (pair)s in grammars? Or can you think
of terms that would fit?<br>
<br>
Many thanks in advance,<br>
Christian<br>
-- <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 href="mailto:christianw_lehmann@arcor.de" target="_blank">christianw_lehmann@arcor.de</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Web:</td>
<td><a href="https://www.christianlehmann.eu/" target="_blank">https://www.christianlehmann.eu</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Lingtyp mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
<a href="https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br>Lingtyp mailing list<br>Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org<br>https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp<br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>