Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: THEORY: Mixed erg/acc

From:FFlores <fflores@...>
Date:Sunday, March 12, 2000, 1:50
daniel andreasson <daniel.andreasson@...> wrote:

>> 1s.NOM hit dog.ABS (a1) >> >> dog.ERG bite 1s.ACC (a2)
>> >> with ABS and NOM unmarked. Is either of these plausible? > >It's alternative (a) that is 'mixed ergative'. So that's >what you should go with if I got you first intentions right.
This is what I've decided. It looks coherent, and it's simple to explain and remember. BTW, thanks to all who replied. You've made light where there wasn't any.
>Active is rather split-intransitive (at least >in one of the meanings).
Oh, I didn't study! ;) Thanks. I'll keep that for another language, maybe.
>The question is how you would treat intransitive verbs. >You could add an 'active touch' by being able to use all >three cases (NOM for 1+2p, ERG for other Agents and ABS/ACC >for Patients). How about that?
That's what I meant with merging ABS and ACC... and using ergative for intransitive subjects too (though the name "ergative" would be misleading). I'll do that sometime; for now the double system I have is enough. :) --Pablo Flores http://www.geocities.com/pablo-david/index.html http://www.geocities.com/pablo-david/draseleq.html