[Lingtyp] non-agentive transitives

[Marianne Mithun]

Dear Ference et al.

That's exactly the point in these systems. The grammatical agent is
formally the same in transitive and intransitive sentences, and the
grammatical patient is formally the same in transitive and intransitive
sentences. So calling them 'split intransitive' has always been Eurocentric.

Of course not all languages are exactly the same. Marking patterns may be a
bit different, and what is categorized as an agent or a patient in a
particular language varies in interesting ways. (A nice one in Central Pomo
is that if I win in gambling, I'm a grammatical agent, but if I lose in
gambling, I'm a grammatical patient.) And patterns have histories. So
Mohawk 'throw' occurs with a grammatical patient, because it is the verb
'lose' with a directional prefix.

Marianne

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 1:38 AM Havas Ferenc <hfz at iif.hu> wrote:

> Dear Colleagues,
>
> My question is about the differential marking of agentive and non-agentive
> subjects in transitive sentences. It is well known that in some languages,
> called active or agentive, the marking of the subject of intransitive verbs
> (whether by a case or by agreement) differs depending on whether the
> subject is agentive or patient-like. As Marianne Mithun puts it: “ln all of
> these languages one case is used for semantic agents of most transitive
> verbs and the single argument of some intransitives while a different case
> is used for the semantic patients of most transitive verbs and the single
> argument of other intransitives. The sets of verbs occurring with each case
> are largely the same from one language to the next. Most verbs in the first
> set denote events performed, effected, instigated and controlled by their
> participants (’jump', 'go', 'catch'). Most verbs in the second set denote
> state significantly affecting their participants ('be sick', 'be tired',
> 'be caught’)”. (Language 1991, 67/3, 523)
>
> So much about subjects of intransitive predicates. Less light seems to
> have been cast on transitive subjects in the dedicated languages, though
> the pattern exists. Consider e.g. these Kaddoan sentences (selected from
> the same paper, 525–528):
>
>    1. *ci-hahyúnčah*  'I'm going to go home.’
>    2. *ku-táyʡayah* 'I'm tired, disgusted, fed up.'
>
> (3)  *ci-kíʡčah* 'I'm going to kill him.'
>
>    1. *kú-ʡnutah* ’I like it.’
>
>
>
> (1) and (2) show that agentive and non-agentive subjects of intransitive
> sentences have distinct verbal prefixes: *ci-* versus *ku-.*  (3) and (4)
> in turn illustrate the differential marking of agentive and non-agentive
> subjects in transitive sentences with the very same prefixes as
> in intransitive sentences.
>
> So my questions are
>
> a) WHICH SUBJECTS?
> Which subjects are non-agentively marked in transitive sentences? I would
> expect them to be passive experiencers (of verbs like ’see’, ’hear’ as
> opposed to ‘look at’, ‘listen to’), recipients (’get’, ’inherit’),
> possessors (’have’), undergoers of unintentional mental processes
> (’remember’, ’forget’), emotions (’like’, ’dislike’, ’hate’).
>
> b) UNIFORM MARKING?
> If a language has splits in both transitive and intransitive sentences,
> are the agentive and non-agentive markers of the same form in the two types
> of sentences?
>
> At the end of the day, the central issue is whether the agentive –
> non-agentive split does or does not work the same way in intransitive and
> transitive sentences. If it did, the mere “split intransivity” concept of
> agentive languages would be worth reconsidering.
>
> Thank you for your assistance.
>
> Ferenc Havas
>
> Professor Emeritus of Linguistics
>
> ELTE University, Budapest
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20200130/0555eda5/attachment.htm>