Talk:Anticausative verb

Headline text

Thank you for this thought-provoking article. My current concern is about the proliferation of categories for placing verb[forms], so that eventually everyone (in all languages) would be in its own precise niche. But )for instance), is one to "assume that there is a cause or an agent of causation" for every phenomenon (like Pangloss!)? If one does not assume "free will", are there any volitional agents--human, animal, "inanimate: ships, windows, doors &c.?

Where would one go from that position? Staiss? or anarchy? I don't know whether I can sort this out, but the discussion helps.

Arabic, Chinese, Japanese

Hi, these three languages are amongst the most spoken worldwide, so it would improve the entry a great deal to add them. Thanks in advance. --Backinstadiums (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Merge discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is this convoluted anticausative verb article really necessary? The gist of whatever this article inadequately describes seems either to overlap with or to equate to a labile verb. Perhaps the two articles should be merged under an ergative verb title. FRIW:

• ergative verb is a term coined in 1965 per Google Ngram viewer while ergative dates to 1939.
• labile verb is a term coined in 1977 per Google Ngram viewer while labile dates to 1603.
• anticausative verb is a term coined in 1980 per Google Ngram viewer.

Kent Dominic·(talk) 00:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.