Re: Ergativity
| From: | Chris Bates <christopher.bates@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Saturday, August 9, 2003, 16:16 |
|---|
Clearly if it is an ergative language, it would be marked
2. Robert-<abs> cooked.
as this comes from the definition of an ergative language, and cooked is being
used in an intransitive way. However, the verb would probably be marked in an
antipassive way or some construction used to make clear that Robert was the one
doing cooking and that the patient has been omitted rather than that robert was
being cooked. Although not necessarily... after all, english does not do
anything to mark that in "robert cooked" robert is the agent, and in "the rice
cooked" that the rice is the patient.
If the languages does indeed mark it:
2. Robert-<erg> cooked.
without an abs than it is not actually an ergative language at all.
Reply