Message-ID: <33C6319E.CE2@image.dk>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 15:14:07 +0200
From: Kristian Jensen <kljensen@image.dk>
Reply-To: kljensen@image.dk
Organization: Unknown Organization
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: sci.lang
CC: kljensen@image.dk
Subject: trigger system vs. voice system
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: pm5-28.image.dk
Lines: 19
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!eecs-usenet-02.mit.edu!netnews.com!howland.erols.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!uninett.no!news.uni-c.dk!news.image.dk!pm5-28.image.dk

One of the most interesting syntactical features of Philippine languages
is the use of the trigger system instead of the voice system. The
trigger system seems to me to be more versatile than the familiar voice
system. The arguments that can be chosen as a trigger show a much wider
range of semantic roles than the typical active/passive roles for
subjects chosen in a typical voice system.

>From what I know of this, Philippine languages are the only languages
that utilize the trigger system. All other languages use a voice system
(or none at all). Or am I wrong in assuming this? If there are other
languages that use the trigger system, could someone please bring them
to my attention. Better yet, explain to me how they differ from
Philippine languages. I'm interested in knowing how they could differ
from Philippine languages. Also, if I'm right - I'd also like to know.

My thanks in advance,
-Kristian-


