User:Bukkia/sandboxVIII: Difference between revisions

From FrathWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
=== The active-stative alignment ===
=== The active-stative alignment ===
The case system of Kī́rtako language is based on a morphological alignment called '''agentive-stative''' type (also called in Piti philological studies the ''agentive-passive'' alignment). This kind of alignment is essential different from the ''nominative-accusative'' alignment, which is widespread among most European languages, and from the even rarer ''ergative-absolutive'' alignment.
The case system of Biwdiw language is based on a morphological alignment called '''agentive-stative''' type (also called in Piti philological studies the ''agentive-passive'' alignment). This kind of alignment is essential different from the ''nominative-accusative'' alignment, which is widespread among most European languages, and from the even rarer ''ergative-absolutive'' alignment.


In an agentive-stative alignment the choice of the case relies on the intrinsic ability of the subject to be an active agent in the sentence or not. Unlike the ergative-absolutive alignment, subjects of an intransitive verb can also be agentive subjects, if the action is performed with a certain degree of animacy or intentionality. This usually also depends on the semantic nature of the verb itself. Let’s see two examples:
In an agentive-stative alignment the choice of the case relies on the intrinsic ability of the subject to be an active agent in the sentence or not. Unlike the ergative-absolutive alignment, subjects of an intransitive verb can also be agentive subjects, if the action is performed with a certain degree of animacy or intentionality. This usually also depends on the semantic nature of the verb itself. Let’s see two examples:
Line 14: Line 14:


Examples:
Examples:
  sopali<sup><small>AGEN</small></sup> wī́ro<sup><small>PASS</small></sup> ñamī́kɑt
  subɛliw<sup><small>AGEN</small></sup> ňɛmīčɛc wīru<sup><small>PASS</small></sup>
  <small>the dog is biting the man
  <small>the dog is biting the man
  (sopali is the subject of the transitive verb ñamī́kɑme and is declined in the agentive case, while wī́ro is the object of the verb and it is declined in the passive case)</small>
  (subɛliw is the subject of the transitive verb ňɛmīčiwgɛ and is declined in the agentive case, while wīru is the object of the verb and it is declined in the passive case)</small>


  sopali<sup><small>AGEN</small></sup> ʔimḗɣekɑt
  sopali<sup><small>AGEN</small></sup> ʔimḗɣekɑt

Revision as of 02:01, 25 May 2025

The active-stative alignment

The case system of Biwdiw language is based on a morphological alignment called agentive-stative type (also called in Piti philological studies the agentive-passive alignment). This kind of alignment is essential different from the nominative-accusative alignment, which is widespread among most European languages, and from the even rarer ergative-absolutive alignment.

In an agentive-stative alignment the choice of the case relies on the intrinsic ability of the subject to be an active agent in the sentence or not. Unlike the ergative-absolutive alignment, subjects of an intransitive verb can also be agentive subjects, if the action is performed with a certain degree of animacy or intentionality. This usually also depends on the semantic nature of the verb itself. Let’s see two examples:

  • to jump: this verb is considered as grammatically intransitive, but the described action involves an activity and a will from the subject. Thus, the alignment selects the agentive case for such subjects.
  • to fall: this verb is considered as grammatically intransitive, but the described action involves no active engagement or no active will from the subject. It is more regarded as an incidental event, even if it implies some kind of motion. Thus, the alignment selects the passive case for such subjects.

The system selects only the passive case for direct objects of transitive verbs. Potential confusion is avoided, as the agentive case and the passive case cannot be selected for two kinds of elements which may be in the same sentence.

The general usage rule for these cases is:

  • Subject of a transitive verb: agentive case
  • Active subject of an intransitive verb: agentive case
  • Inactive subject of an intransitive verb: passive case
  • Direct object of a transitive verb: passive case

Examples:

subɛliwAGEN ňɛmīčɛc wīruPASS
the dog is biting the man
(subɛliw is the subject of the transitive verb ňɛmīčiwgɛ and is declined in the agentive case, while wīru is the object of the verb and it is declined in the passive case)
sopaliAGEN ʔimḗɣekɑt
the dog is running away
(sopali is the subject of the intransitive verb ʔimḗɣekɑme, for which it is an active subject. As such, it intentionally and actively performs the action, and it is declined in the agentive case)
sopaPASS kḗwon
the dog is sleeping
(sopa is the subject of the intransitive verb kḗwonɑme, for which it is an unactive subject. As such, it does not intentionally and actively perform the action, and it is declined in the passive case)

The rules of this system are interlaced with the class system. 2nd class nouns cannot be declined in the agentive case at all. Sentences in which these elements might be transitive or active subject are usually differently arrange, as such nouns cannot be in the agentive case:

the storm spoiled the harvest → the harvest spoiled because of the storm
umatsṓta kumḗkhu ʔaʔosī́p

However, some natural entities can be perceived as animate, as having their own will, like sɑño, light, pike, water, ʔako, wind, and they may optionally be regarded as 1st class nouns. In such cases these nouns can be active subjects of transitive verbs and be declined in the agentive case.