Re: Ergativity

Nik Taylor <yonjuuni@...> wrote:

> Chris Bates wrote:
> >  If the languages does indeed mark it:
> >
> > 2. Robert-<erg> cooked.
> >
> > without an abs than it is not actually an ergative language at all.
>
> Uh, yes it is.  It depends on the language.  Many undebatably accusative
> languages allow you to drop arguments.
In this case, however, one would tend to think of this as an active
language rather than an ergative one, unless there's some morphology
on the verb itself. ObConlang: I have this in Stálág, stolen from
Georgian. It's split-S and absolutely rigid about transitivity -- but
you can drop arguments freely since they are always marked on the verb.

I understand that these categories are just useful labels and it's not
a matter of life or death to separate them, but just how does one
distinguish an active language (especially a split-S one) from an
ergative one with free argument deletion?


--Pablo Flores
  http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/nyh/index.html
  "The future is all around us, waiting, in moments
   of transition, to be born in moments of revelation.
   No one knows the shape of that future or where it
   will take us. We know only that it is always born
   in pain."  -- G'Kar quoting G'Quon, in "Babylon 5"

Reply