Re: THEORY: Mixed erg/acc

FFlores wrote:
> How is NOM unmarked on a 1st/2nd-person subject while
> marked on a 1st/2nd-person object?
I believe it was a typo.  1st/2nd has nominative (unmarked) and
accusative (marked), while 3rd person and nouns have absolutive
(unmarked) and ergative (marked)

>     1s.NOM hit dog.ABS     (a1)
> OR  1s.NOM hit dog.ACC     (b1)
>     'I hit the dog.'
>
>     dog.ERG bite 1s.ACC    (a2)
> OR  dog.ERG bite 1s.ABS    (b2)
>     'The dog bites me.'
>
> with ABS and NOM unmarked. Is either of these plausible?
The first of each, if you want it to be mixed erg/abs rather than
active.  Watakassí does something similar, except that all clitic
pronouns are nom/acc, while nouns and free pronouns are abs/erg.

> My current scheme is (b)...
Then what would dog be in intransitive sentences like "the dog fell"?
If it's "nom", then what you're calling "abs" would actually be acc,
while if it's "abs", then what you're calling "nom" is really "erg".  If
it can be either, then you have an active system.

--
"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can
satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another
world."                                 -- C. S. Lewis