Indonesian Prefix Ter- (The Relationship between a State and an Accident)

One of the great joys of teaching online is the magnificent encounter with strangers. One of my pair of students is a philosopher and a linguist from one of the best universities in the world. I thoroughly enjoy every single one of the class because of how utterly intriguing their questions are. Recently the philosopher asked me about the functions of the Indonesian prefix ter-. When paired with a verb, there are three main functions of this prefix:

1. Stative: it describes a state or a situation as it is
   Buku ini terletak di meja.
   The book lies on the table. (the verb “lie” describes the state the book is in)
2. Accidental: it describes an action which is accidental or involuntary (a mistake)
   Ia terjatuh berulang kali.
   He falls many times. (“falling” is unintentional)
3. Abilitative: it describes an action with which the agent has an ability to do so
   Rumah itu tidak terbeli olehnya.
   The house is not bought by him. (He cannot buy the house – perhaps he’s too poor)

The philosopher’s question is: to what extent is a verb accidental or involuntary?

The First Question

The first question I had was about what it takes for an action to count as involuntary in the sense implied by ‘Ter-‘. You gave an initial condition that excluded being forced by an outside agent. So, for instance, acting under hypnosis or mind-control does not count as forced/involuntary in the relevant sense. Fair enough.

How about when I am the agent doing the forcing? For instance, in English, although I can make myself sneeze, it seems strange to say that I can sneeze voluntarily. Similarly, I can make myself vomit, but I would not then say that I vomited at will.

There are some verbs that go with ter– when the agent is doing the forcing, but the conditions are not as strict as sneezing and vomiting. For example, smiling and frowning take on the ter– prefix, presumably because you can smile and frown at will, or in response to outside stimuli.

No prefixes involved (implying bodily actions in which you have no control over)

• Aku bersin. I sneeze.
• Aku muntah. I vomit.
• Aku batuk. I cough.

*terbersin, berbersin, membersin are grammatically unacceptable

As he said, it’s strange to say that you can sneeze voluntarily. Although technically one can force oneself to vomit or sneeze, it is not the usual assumption. At least, I believe that the logic of the language assumes that these bodily actions are involuntary. The question is, why don’t they accept the ter- prefix? It could be because some intransitive verbs just don’t take prefixes, but it could also be a case of needs.

In Indonesian, it is becoming more common to drop the prefixes for makan (‘eat’) or minum (‘drink’). My theory is that these actions are part of the human body needs. A common action that occurs for human survival. Other verbs that shed the usage of prefixes are: mandi (‘shower’), bangun (‘wake up’), tidur (‘sleep’). These are involuntary actions, but they are also part of the human condition. 

Ter- prefix applicable (implying actions in which you have partial control over)

• Aku tertawa. I laugh.
• Aku tersenyum. I smile.
• Aku termanyun. I frown.

In the Oxford Indonesian grammar book, it is mentioned that ter- can be used to express emotions. But underneath this rule, we should ask why ter- commonly occurs with expressions. Something about smiling, laughing, and frowning are stative, accidental, or abilitative. I believe that these expressions fall under the spectrum. Smiling can be forced at will (I can smile even though I am sad). Smiling is a state, just as an expression is a state. Smiling can also be involuntary, forced by the situation (watching my nephew walk for the first time makes me smile). Therefore, the control is partially exerted at will and partially involuntary.

Ter- prefix inapplicable, MeN- prefix applicable (implying agency over the action)

• Aku menangis. I cry.

*tangis, tertangis are grammatically unacceptable

It’s interesting how crying takes the active meN- prefix, implying that the action is considered a continuous action, despite being intransitive. The logic of the language assumes that it doesn’t matter whether you cry at will or involuntarily; crying, at its core, is an action of which you are the active agent.

The Second Question

The second question I had was about whether ‘Ter-” tracks the distinction between an accident and a mistake. Although the distinction is often obscured in English by pragmatic factors, I think there is a genuine semantic distinction. Here is a story to tease out the difference (this was originally developed by the philosopher J. L. Austin, from your alma mater, Oxford!):

Suppose you and I each have a donkey grazing in the same field. I take a dislike to my donkey and decide to kill him. So, I go to shoot it. I take aim and fire. The donkey falls but as I inspect the poor thing, I realise that it is your donkey I have killed. Here it seems I’ve made a mistake.

Now imagine that I take aim and pull my trigger, but at the last moment my donkey jumps out of the way and my bullet hits yours instead. In this case, it seems that the death of your donkey was an accident. Can I use Ter- just in instances of mistakes, or also for instances of accidents?

Interesting scenario! Based on the donkey example, ter- can be interpreted as a mistake or an accident:

• Kedelai itu tertembak.
  The donkey is shot (either by accident or by mistake).
• Kedelai itu ditembak.
  The donkey is shot (definitely not an accident or mistake)

I’ve come to this conclusion by fabricating a story in which the verb ditembak (clear passive voice) can eventually be replaced by tertembak (stative/accidental/abilitative voice):

Indonesian:

Ia berencana menembak kedelai tetangganya, maka kedelai itu ditembak. Namun, ketika ia mendekati kedelai tersebut, ia sadar bahwa ia telah menembak kedelainya sendiri. Ia jatuh tersungkur: Kedelai kesayangannya ?ditembak/?tertembak karena kerakusannya.

English:

He was planning to shoot the neighbour’s donkey, so the donkey was shot. But when he came closer to the donkey, he realised that he’d shot his own donkey. He fell on his knees: His beloved donkey was shot because of his greed.

In this passage, we can see the development of definitive di- (passive voice with agent) to di-/ter-. I’ve asked a couple of people which verb they prefer (ditembak/tertembak) and most people agree that both are acceptable — the latter (tertembak) diminishing the owner’s involvement in the act (it was indeed a mistake or an accident). I believe that the reduction of the owner’s involvement in the involuntary action renders the verb tertembak stative. My understanding is that an accident or a mistake ultimately can be described as a state of affairs. The way things are, nothing you can do about it.

Ter- is a good prefix to explore the spectrum of stative action and things that happen beyond your control or beyond your ability. It makes me think of the word terjadi (happen):

Ledakan dahsyat terjadi.

The big bang happened.

Was it a state or an accident? I think it can be both.