Talk:Antipassive voice

message: Is there a reason why the verb was changed? I think that although "He is telling" is ungrammatical, it is still better for understanding the effect of Antipassive. There could be a star ('*') before the translation and an extra comment in brackets like: (which is ungrammatical in English, as the verb 'tell' must have an object). 201.95.65.91 (talk) 23:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds like a translation into English, where natural English wording uses one verb when there's an object and a different verb when there isn't; but since translation is not what's being illustrated, I've changed the verb to speaking, which works in both voices.  Pi zero (talk) 11:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "He is telling the truth" -> "He is talking" 

message: "may cast the clause as imperfective, inceptive, or potential"  There is a link from this phrase to imperfective, but not to inceptive or potential.  What are the definitions of "inceptive" and "potential" and what do they have to do with the meaning of the sentence?  In a 2006 paper by Dave Mathewson, he suggests that these latter two categories, which have been taught time out of mind in connection with koine Greek, are useless and have no bearing on producing an accurate translation.  Go back to the source of this phrase and find and provide the definition so that readers can see whether it's useful in understanding an anti-passive text.  
71.163.117.143 (talk) 15:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  incomplete 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Antipassive voice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050421211127/http://www.ethnologue.com:80/LL_docs/index/Antipassivevoice(Linguistics).asp to http://www.ethnologue.com/LL_docs/index/Antipassivevoice(Linguistics).asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050930122401/http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/LFG/8/lfg03beach.doc to http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/LFG/8/lfg03beach.doc
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The first two bits of the introduction are repetitive. The examples in it belong in an "examples" section down in the body.
71.178.191.144 (talk) 13:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  introduction needs work 

message: Point # 3 reads subjectively. What is the objective definition of whether a word in a sentence is "peripheral", which suggests that it is not important to the meaning of the sentence. How many of us throw objects into our sentences just to have more words in them? This sounds like something from an antiquated source. Antiquated grammarians like Gesenius are famous for using descriptives that have a pejorative nuance in them.
71.178.191.144 (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  definition 

message: In the Function section, the second Dyirbal example seems to repeat the ungrammatical sentence from the first example instead of giving the grammatical form with the absolutive form changing to dative as I believe is intended. Parquillian (talk) 21:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Function section example issue 

message: The current text contains:
”A further purpose of antipassive construction is often to make certain arguments available as pivots for relativization, coordination of sentences, or similar constructions.Willi, Andreas. 2018. Origins of the Greek verb, pp. 587-588, OUP, and references therein. For example, in Dyirbal the omitted argument in conjoined sentences must be in absolutive case. Thus, the following sentence is ungrammatical:
In the conjoined sentence, the omitted argument (the man) would have to be in ergative case, being the agent of a transitive verb (to see). This is not allowed in Dyirbal. In order to make this sentence grammatical, the antipassive, which promotes the original ergative to absolutive and puts the former absolutive (the woman) into dative case has to be used:
”
To me the following things in this text are unclear:
[1] The omitted argument in the second clause of the first Dyirbal sentence is “baji jaɽa”.
[2] It is, reportedly, in absolutive case.
=> Both stated conditions are met, yet the sentence is marked as ungrammatical.
[3] “In the conjoined sentence, the omitted argument (the man) would have to be in ergative case,”
=> Does “the conjoined sentence” refer to the first or to the second conjoined clause? (My understanding is that one sentence consists of one or multiple clauses.)
=> If it refers to the first one, there is contradiction, since “baji jaɽa” is not omitted there.
=> If it refers to the second one, there is contradiction, since an omitted argument can obviously not be in any case.
[4] What exactly is not allowed in a/the conjoined sentence: an (omitted) argument being in ergative case, or the agent of a transitive verb being in ergative case?
[5] “In order to make this sentence grammatical, the antipassive, which promotes the original ergative to absolutive and puts the former absolutive (the woman) into dative case has to be used”
=> Since there is no ergative in the first Dyirbal sentence, there is no original ergative either. So what is meant by “the original ergative”?
=> Since there are two former absolutives (“baji jaɽa” and “balan ɟuɡumbil”), why is only “the former absolutive (the woman) put into dative case and not also “baji jaɽa”? Redav (talk) 12:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Puzzled by wording in passage on Dyirbal