Timeline for How accurate is the typical definition of a deponent verb?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 4, 2020 at 7:31 | comment | added | Joonas Ilmavirta♦ | @Mitomino I see where you are coming from, but to me still the subject of mori and nasci is a semantic subject. We just have different views on what a semantic subject is. I would be happy to read your answer posted from your point of view. Those ideas should not be buried in comments, as comments do get deleted sometimes. | |
| Dec 4, 2020 at 4:31 | comment | added | Mitomino | Your generalization can be revised as follows: "Passive forms of non-deponent verbs work so that the semantic object is the syntactic subject, whereas in active forms semantics and syntax agree. For deponent verbs like mori and nasci all forms are passive (apart form the present participle) and the syntactic subject is the semantic object". Note that the so-called "unaccusative hypothesis" accounts for this parallelism between the semantic object of passives and unaccusatives: i.e. the derived subject of passives and the derived subject of unaccusatives are both generated as objects. | |
| Dec 4, 2020 at 4:18 | comment | added | Mitomino | Unaccusative verbs are those intransitive verbs whose surface subject is generated in the object position (that's why they are passive in meaning: the object position is where the patient role is assigned). In contrast, unergative verbs are those intransitive verbs whose surface subject is generated in the subject position (that's why they are not passive in meaning). Given the definition of unaccusatives, note the important parallellism between unaccusatives and passives. Your generalization above omits this very important point. | |
| Dec 4, 2020 at 3:48 | comment | added | Mitomino | Revising your answer, I've realized which is the source of your confusion in your generalization in bold above: "For deponent verbs all forms are passive (apart form the present participle), but still the syntactical subject is the semantic subject". If you consider the famous unaccusative/unergative distinction, you will realize that the syntactic subject of deponent verbs like mori and nasci is the semantic OBJECT: e.g. see glottopedia.org/index.php/Unaccusative_verb | |
| Feb 10, 2019 at 18:01 | comment | added | Mitomino | In short, so-called “unaccusativity” is what connects deponent verbs of the mori type with passive constructions. Finally, let me say that, of course, I’ve deliberately “read too much” into the notion of ‘active meaning’ in order to show its incoherence in any reasonable sense one can give to this phrase (e.g., the typical sense, e.g., the one shown in TKR’s paraphrase, or the other one I’ve also criticized in this post). Anyway, many thanks for your arguments and above all for your very interesting examples locuto Caesare and agmine secuto. | |
| Feb 10, 2019 at 18:01 | comment | added | Mitomino | Our views are different but not “too different”. Here is my revised paraphrase of your text in bold above: Passive forms of non-deponent verbs work so that the semantic object (the Patient) becomes the syntactic subject, whereas in active forms semantics and syntax agree. For deponent verbs all forms are passive (apart form the pres.part.), but still the syntactic subject is the semantic subject (the Agent) in the case of hortari and loqui -type verbs. In contrast, and in parallel with the subject of passive constructions, the Patient argument of mori verbs is the syntactic subject. | |
| Feb 10, 2019 at 7:03 | comment | added | Joonas Ilmavirta♦ | @Mitomino Hmm... Then I feel our views are too different for it to make any sense for me to explain further. I still think you have read too much into the word "active", and perhaps someone else can explain it better. | |
| Feb 10, 2019 at 1:17 | comment | added | Mitomino | As for your definition in bold, let me clarify some important point. Notice that the subject of passive forms AND the subject of deponent verbs with passive meaning (verbs like mori, nasci, etc) have the very same semantic function (thematic role): their subject is a PATIENT, which is the thematic role typically associated to direct objects of transitive verbs, subjects of passive constructions, and subjects of unaccusative verbs. Joonas, I'm afraid that your definition in bold is a bit confusing. | |
| Feb 10, 2019 at 0:30 | comment | added | Mitomino | I’ve seen that some authors have attempted to correlate deponent verbs with so-called “unaccusative” verbs (vid. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unaccusative_verb ). As far as I know, this correlation only holds for those deponent verbs which I’ve argued have a “passive meaning”: i.e., verbs like mori, nasci, oriri . Notice that in these cases the subject has the semantic function (i.e., the thematic role) of Patient, whereby these verbs can indeed be said to be “unaccusative”. | |
| Feb 7, 2019 at 20:52 | comment | added | Joonas Ilmavirta♦ | @TKR Fair enough. My general linguistic training is quite limited, so I would be happy to see a more rigorous exposition of the matter. I think I successfully located the source of confusion, but I'm not convinced that I did a good job explaining it all. | |
| Feb 7, 2019 at 20:49 | comment | added | TKR | I think the difficulty with this analysis is how to define "semantic subject". In modern linguistics "subject" and "object" are generally defined more by syntax than semantics, while semantics works with terms like "agent", "patient", etc., which don't necessarily match up with any particular syntactic roles. | |
| Feb 7, 2019 at 18:24 | comment | added | Mitomino | Joonas, yes, I think I understand what you mean concerning my interpretation of the term "active" applied to "active meaning". In any case I'm glad to see that you acknowledge that "it can be confusing". Indeed, (in MY view) it is! The adjective "active" applied to MEANING (and not to form!) means what it means. | |
| Feb 7, 2019 at 18:20 | history | edited | Joonas Ilmavirta♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 764 characters in body
|
| Feb 7, 2019 at 18:15 | comment | added | Joonas Ilmavirta♦ | @Mitomino I would say that in your example the verb docere has active meaning (in the sense you seem to understand it), but it is now used in a passive form. Verbs with two objects fall outside what I presented in this answer, but they are described in another question. Anyway, my point stands that the defining feature of deponent verbs is the semantics of the subject. | |
| Feb 7, 2019 at 18:10 | comment | added | Mitomino | As for your comment "a passive verb cannot be transitive", I agree this is generally the case but there are indeed cases where a passive verb can be transitive e.g., Pueri docti sunt grammaticam. | |
| Feb 7, 2019 at 18:02 | comment | added | Joonas Ilmavirta♦ | @Mitomino I think the point is that in "active meaning" the word "active" is supposed to refer to active forms of non-deponent verbs, not activity in an everyday sense. I agree that it can be confusing. I think you misanalyzed the word "active" (from the point of view of someone defining deponent verbs the way you cite), but I hope my answer cleared at least some of that confusion. | |
| Feb 7, 2019 at 18:00 | history | edited | Joonas Ilmavirta♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 321 characters in body
|
| Feb 7, 2019 at 17:57 | comment | added | Mitomino | There seems to be a terminological confusion on what "active meaning" is (as opposed to “passive meaning”). In my view, the meaning of mori is by far less active than that of loqui, which, as noted above, probably explains why it is easier to find the verb mori in AA constructions with past participles compared to loqui: putting both verbs into the same bag (by saying that both express “active meanings”, which is incorrect in my view) does not account for this difference in usage). That's why I find the typical/simple definition of a deponent verb confusing and misleading. | |
| Feb 7, 2019 at 17:18 | history | answered | Joonas Ilmavirta♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |