Re: Triggeriness ...

>> The structure of "trigger" languages is
>> nothing but merely an extension of the very well
>> known and familiar concept of verbal voice, so as
>> to allow arguments other than just the object
>> to be promotable to the position of subject, that
>> is, to the position of the unmarked case with which
>> the verb agrees and towards which it is "focalized"
>> - or, as you put it, so as "to make a subject of"
>> what are usually treated as non-core cases.
>
>In fact, it isn't.  Voice systems almost always have a dominant
>active voice and other voices are subordinate.  Trigger systems
>do not predominantly use actor-trigger sentences: all the types
>are essentially equal.
But that doesn't change anything essential. Just
that some languages use one of the voices as default
while others put all voices on equal foot, but they
are still a manifestation of the notion of "voice"
(i.e. of how the verb is modified to 'focalize' it
towards an argument"). English puts the actor/nominative
as default/predominant/unmarked case while Basque
puts the patient/absolutive as default/unmarked and
the actor/ergative and recipient/dative as marked
but on aparent equal foot as the absolutive regarding
their connection with the verb. But this fact
doesn't make Basque cases a whole category apart
from English cases; all of them are part of the same
notion of "case" (i.e. of how the noun is modified
to show its relationship with the verb or with
other nouns), only that languages vary as to how
cases get organized and used in them - the same as
they vary as to how voice gets organized and used
in them, from Basque virtual absence of voice (or
maybe is it a passive-the-almighty one-voice system?)
through English hierarchical two-voice system to
Tagalog 'democratic' multi-voice system.

Cheers,
Javier