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