Re: THEORY: Mixed erg/acc

> From: Matt Pearson
>
> >I have a question about langs that use ergative/absolutive
> >for all sentences, except for 1st and 2nd person, which
> >use nominative/accusative (e. g. Dyirbal and my G'amah).
> >
> >Does this mean that
> >
> >a) the 1st and 2nd person pronouns are marked NOM or ACC
> >   while the other argument is marked ABS or ERG, respectively,
> >OR
> >b) when the subject is 1st and 2nd person, it's marked NOM
> >   while the object is ACC?
>
> Alternative (a).  If the transitive subject is 1st/2nd person and
> the object is non-1st/2nd, then the subject is in the NOM form
> and the object is in the ACC form (i.e. both are unmarked).  If
> the transitive subject is non-1st/2nd and the object is 1st/2nd,
> then the subject is in the ERG form and the object is in the NOM
> form (i.e. both are marked).
While the marking is correct, the analysis I've seen is slightly different
in Dyirbal.  Speech-act pronouns (1st and 2nd person) in A-function
(transitive subject) take the unmarked nom, and the marked acc (-na) in
P-function (transitive object).  Other pronouns and nouns take the marked
erg (-ngu) in A-function and the unmarked absol in P-function.  So your
first example would be A=NOM/P=ABSOL - both still unmarked, your second
would be A=ERG/P=ACC - both still marked.  Dixon in his Dyirbal Grammar goes
into some detail as to why this is the more appropriate analysis.  I could
dig it up if any are interested.

S-function arguments (intransitive subjects) are always unmarked, BTW.

David
Who is hopelessly behind in reading this list but couldn't resist reading
anything with "erg" in the subject line.