Enter your search text in the box above

Select a result to preview



Types of Agent

When Agent (བྱེད་པ།) is divided, there are two:

  1. Agent བྱེད་པ་པོ། / Primary Agent བྱེད་པ་པོ་གཙོ་བོ།
    1. A human agent སེམས་ལྡན་སྨྲ་ཤེས་དོན་གོ་བའི་བྱེད་པ་པོ།
    2. A non-human (but living) agent སེམས་ལྡན་སྨྲ་ཤེས་དོན་གོ་བ་མིན་པའི་བྱེད་པ་པོ།
  2. Mere Actor བྱེད་པ་ཙམ། / Secondary Agent བྱེད་པ་པོ་ཕལ་པ།
    1. A physical agent བེམ་པོའི་ངོ་བོར་གྱུར་པའི་བྱེད་པ།
    2. An agent that is consciousness ཤེས་པའི་ངོ་བོར་གྱུར་པའི་བྱེད་པ།
    3. An agent that is a non-associated compositional factor ལྡན་མིན་འདུ་བྱེད་ཀྱི་ངོ་བོར་གྱུར་པའི་བྱེད་པ།

The latter can also be divided into:

  1. Secondary Agents (བྱེད་པ་ཙམ།)
  2. Instruments (ལག་ཆ།)

Discussion regarding types of agents

Things get complicated since in certain contexts:

For clarity, I will use the two terms བྱེད་པ་པོ། and བྱེད་པ་ཙམ།, consider them equivalent to བྱེད་པ་པོ་གཙོ་བོ། and བྱེད་པ་པོ་ཕལ་པ།, respectively, and accept the divisions as presented above. However, the debate around these will be discussed below.

These two terms are also grammatically accurate, since བྱེད། means “to do”, this is nominalised as བྱེད་པ།, making it the “doing” or “doer” (but not necessarily a person), then adding the possession particle (བདག་སྒྲ།) to make བྱེད་པ་པོ། also marks the owner of the doing and explicitly as a living being.

For example: Tashi writes a letter with a pen བཀྲ་ཤིས་ཀྱིས་ཡི་གེ་སྨྱུ་གུས་འབྲི།
Here, Tashi is the Primary Agent (བྱེད་པ་པོ།) while the pen is the Secondary Agent (བྱེད་པ་ཙམ།).

Difficulties arise with examples such as: The clouds obscured the sun སྤྲིན་པས་ཉི་མ་བསྒྲིབས།

The latter is asserted either:

  1. because the clouds are the only agent in the sentence (and therefore the "main" or "primary" agent), or
  2. because verbs where agent and object are different (ཐ་དད་པ།) must have a བྱེད་པ་པོ།, or
  3. because they are not an instrument or tool (ལག་ཆ།) that is being used by a separate བྱེད་པ་པོ།, or
  4. because of their placement at the beginning of the sentence, which usually reserved for the བྱེད་པ་པོ།, as opposed to at the end just before the verb, which is usually reserved for the བྱེད་པ་ཙམ། (as in the above example with Tashi).

The first and second objections are closely related and are based on using the terms བྱེད་པ་པོ་གཙོ་བོ། and
བྱེད་པ་པོ་ཕལ་པ། for the two types of agent.

The issue is that both of these types of agent are referred to as བྱེད་པ་པོ།, which contradicts the grammar rules for the Possession Particles (i.e. that they necessarily refer to persons) and negates the above person / non-person distinction, saying that both could be either.
This shifts the distinction between the two types of agent to the terms གཙོ་བོ། and ཕལ་པ།, making them hierarchical such that the Primary is necessary while the Secondary is not (that sense is carried over into the English). The result is that if there is only one agent in the sentence, it will be the Primary Agent (བྱེད་པ་པོ་གཙོ་བོ།) and since verbs where agent and object are different (ཐ་དད་པ།) must have at least one agent, that “first” one will be the Primary Agent.

I don’t mean to imply that it is wrong to base one’s understanding of the types of agent on the terms
བྱེད་པ་པོ་གཙོ་བོ། and བྱེད་པ་པོ་ཕལ་པ། in this way; it is a coherent presentation.
However, I believe it has drawbacks, since it contradicts grammar rules, because:

On the other hand, basing the presentation on the terms བྱེད་པ་པོ། and བྱེད་པ་ཙམ།, as was presented initially, is in keeping with the grammar rules explained above and gives much more explanatory value. In this way, the term བྱེད་པ་པོ། does not imply primacy; in fact, with these terms, in ends up working the other way:

This is because, on the one hand, if there is a བྱེད་པ་པོ། you can always come up with some བྱེད་པ་ཙམ། – even walking is done with one's legs etc. – whereas, you can have verbs that never have a བྱེད་པ་པོ། but can still say they happen naturally. For example: It naturally rains (ཆར་པ་རང་བཞིན་གྱིས་བབས། ཆར་པ་ངང་གིས་བབས།)

As such, with respect to the first two objections:

The caveat is that the English translation as Primary and Secondary Agents is misleading, since it implies a hierarchy. It might be better to translate them as “Agent” and “Mere Actor” instead, but it still might lead to tricky translations, such as “Agents are divided into Agents and Mere Actors…”

Regarding the third objection, as illustrated by my reluctance to translate བྱེད་པ་ཙམ། as “Instrument”, this objection misses the distinction that བྱེད་པ་ཙམ། can be divided into:

  1. Secondary Agents (བྱེད་པ་ཙམ།)
  2. Instruments (ལག་ཆ།)

In this way, there are three possibilities between Secondary Agents and Instruments:

To be an Instrument it must be used by a Primary Agent (because only persons use instruments).

As such, the clouds are a Secondary Agent but not an Instrument because:

On the other hand, Tashi is a Primary Agent because:

And the pen is an Instrument because:

The fourth objection is a case of mixing up the different agents with the active and passive voices. We can say that:

For example:

In both cases the clouds are the བྱེད་པ་ཙམ།, due to being a non-person; the difference is in the active and passive voices, respectively.

Similarly, we could rearrange to give Tashi a passive voice: The letter is written by Tashi (ཡི་གེ་བཀྲ་ཤིས་ཀྱིས་འབྲི།) while still calling him the བྱེད་པ་པོ།.

There is a case to be made that Tibetan does not have the active / passive voice distinction as in English; rather, the placement in the sentence indicates emphasis. Using the two permutations of the cloud example:

However, either way one looks at it, there is still no indication that the placement of the agent in the sentence affects what type of agent it is.

To summarise:

Up a level: Tibetan Grammar / Verbs