Zompist Bboard Again

Why isn’t “-ing” just “progressive”?

Man in Space wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 10:34 am Why isn’t “-ing” just “progressive”?

For that matter, ‘passive’ doesn’t use the same verb form as ‘past’ — e.g. I sang a song vs The song was sung. (It uses the same verb form as the perfect, but then the diagram would lose its symmetry.)

German has something similar

werden 'to become' + infinitive = future, sein 'to be' + infinitive = absentive
werden 'to become' + p. participle = passive, sein 'to be' + p. participle = the other passive

Verbal agreement in Sumerian is pretty cursed.

Person is marked on the verb, with prefixes and suffixes; the suffixes also mark plurality.

For intransitives, agreement is easy— you use the suffixes.

For transitives:
* in the perfective, agreement is ergative
      - prefixes mark the agent
      - suffixes mark the patient
* in the imperfective, agreement is accusative
     - prefixes mark the patient
     - suffixes mark the agent
- but also plurality of the patient

For added fun, the affixes are not always written, but can be revealed by sandhi phenomena.

zompist wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 3:42 pm For intransitives, agreement is easy— you use the suffixes.

For intransitives:
* in the perfective, agreement is ergative
      - prefixes mark the agent
      - suffixes mark the patient
* in the imperfective, agreement is accusative
     - prefixes mark the patient
     - suffixes mark the agent
- but also plurality of the patient

Ooh, this one is fun! (I’m assuming the second paragraph is supposed to be ‘for transitives’.)

In a way this reminds me of Mayan languages, which also have aspect-driven ergativity or accusativity in their person markers… except there, it’s the intransitive person-marker which switches, while the transitive markers stay the same. I’ve been wondering for some time what the reverse system would look like (where the transitive markers are the ones which vary), and this appears to be it.

foxcatdog wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 6:39 pm

"I will be walked" and "I am walked" are correct English, and mean the same as "I will be taken for a walk" and "I am taken for a walk".

true but i forget english grammar all the time

granted its not productive *i will be runned is incorrect

salem wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 7:17 pm

"I will be walked" and "I am walked" are correct English,

Probably only accurate if dogs start to talk, though.

foxcatdog wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 7:20 pm granted its not productive *i will be runned is incorrect

That's because runned is incorrect, of course? "I will be run" sounds a bit strange if it's a person saying it, but "the program will be run" is perfectly fine.

Raphael wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 7:23 pm

salem wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 7:17 pm

"I will be walked" and "I am walked" are correct English,

Probably only accurate if dogs start to talk, though.

Nah, it's normal with appropriate context: walking a child to school, walking your grandma to the bank, that sort of thing.

salem wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 7:43 pm "I will be run" sounds a bit strange if it's a person saying it

“At this rate, I will be run out of business in a matter of weeks!”
“He said I will be run out of town if word gets out.”
“I will be run ragged by the end of this.”

Man in Space wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 9:04 pm

salem wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 7:43 pm "I will be run" sounds a bit strange if it's a person saying it

“At this rate, I will be run out of business in a matter of weeks!”
“He said I will be run out of town if word gets out.”
“I will be run ragged by the end of this.”

Actually very true, you got me there.

Are people finding that mysterious? There's an invisible causativizer going on here. "Run" and "walk" are normally intransitive. But like many verbs they can be used as transitive with causative meaning, that is, "made to run", "made to walk". Thus "we ran him out of town", "I walked the dog."