Re: Ergativity

Quoting Rob Haden <magwich78@...>:

> I was wondering if the sentences below demonstrate an ergative distinction
> in Pre-OurTongue:
>
> [1] Myáya n(w)a thwáya ?yát?ya. [transitive]
>     Me    [GEN] you    eat.
>     I am eating you.
>
> [2] Myáya n(w)a ?yát?ya. [agentive?]
>     Me    [GEN] eat.
>     I am eating (something).
>
> [3] Myáya ?yát?ya. [patientive]
>     Me    eat.
>     I am being eaten (lit. '(Something) is eating me').
>
> What do y'all think?
Ergativity is, put simply, a pattern in which both the single
argument of an intransitive verb and the patient of a transitive
verb are treated (morphologically or syntactically) in one fashion
which is distinct from the treatment of the agent of the same
transitive verb.

Your situation is not clear, because I cannot tell whether the
genitival marker is syntactically associated with the first
argument ("me") as a kind of postposition, or with the second
argument ("you") as a preposition. (If your language adheres
to Greenbergian universals, with an SOV language you would have
postpositions, not prepositions.) If the former, as a postposition,
you do not have an ergative language, because the single argument
of your two putatively intransitive constructions can be marked
either as patient or as agent.  As such, your language would be
a split-S or, more likely, a fluid-S language. If the genitival
marker is associated with the second argument in the transitive
construction, then you still do not have an ergative language,
as the first argument is marked the same in all three examples.

 =========================================================================
Thomas Wier            "I find it useful to meet my subjects personally,
Dept. of Linguistics    because our secret police don't get it right
University of Chicago   half the time." -- octogenarian Sheikh Zayed of
1010 E. 59th Street     Abu Dhabi, to a French reporter.
Chicago, IL 60637