Editor for this issue: <>
I read, somewhat belatedly, from the obituary in Language, the sad news of the passing of George Trager, once a major figure in American linguistics. Since few will know this, but some might care, I thought I would add a footnote regarding two of Trager's all-but-forgotten (what am I saying? entirely forgotten) ideas. One, in a paper in Language in the mid-40's, Trager proposed a phonemic analysis of French in which there was a final schwa phoneme, nasal vowels were phonemicized /VN/, and phonetic sequences [VN] were phonemicized as /V N schwa/. I mention this because it is one of the earliest examples of blatant abstractness in phonological analysis, but one which was incorporated into the phonemic (not the morphophonemic) level. Two, in his sketch of Taos, Trager advanced what is to my knowledge a totally unique analysis of ergativity. Everybody knows about the passive analysis of ergative/absolutive constructions (where you take these to be passives and hence deny that there are transitive constructions at all in the language in question). Trager analyzed Taos ergative/absolutive constructions in the symmetrically opposite way: he took ALL verbal constructions to be TRANSITIVE. Verbs like 'to be' were simply taken to be something like 'It bees me' instead of 'I am'. In this way, he could elegantly account for the formal identity of intransitive subjects with objects. They were both really objects. This can be taken I think as the precursor of similar analyses of many intransitives within Relational Grammar and other offshoots of TG.Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue