Re: Ergativity

On 22 Jan 00, at 22:22, FFlores wrote:

> In most ergative languages, however, the absolutive
> is unmarked (in both the senses of the word). If this is a 'universal'
> (and it sounds likely and 'correct' to me) then this absolutive mark
> would be strange. IIRC the shift from accusative->ergative languages
> often involves transforming a (subject marked as) instrumental into
> ergative.
Hmm, thanks Pablo!

You've (possibly) just allowed me to better describe the case system of
Meynian, or possibly helped me obfuscate it <G>

The situation I have is

Intransitive: Word order VS
"The man(S) runs(V)"
S in case 1
V inflects with a special "0th person" marker

Transitive: Word order SVO
"The man(S) sees(V) the dog(O)"
O in case 1, S in case 2
V inflects for person according to S

Ditransitive: Word order SIVO
"The man(S) fills(V) the bucket(O) with water(I)"
O in case 1, I in case 2, S in case 3
V inflects for person according to I

Certain verbs (such as "to fill") may also be used as a kind of
"quasitransitive" (???) verb, as follows:

???: Word order SVO
"The man(S) fills(V) the bucket(O) [with something unspecified]"
O in case 1, S in case 3
V inflects with a special "0th person" marker

The verb "to fill" may also be used as a standard transitive verb:

Transitive: Word order SVO
"The water fills the bucket" ie "The bucket is full of water"
"The water(S) fills(V) the bucket(O)"
O in case 1, S in case 2
V inflects for person according to S

Up until now, I've been naming cases as follows:

Case 1: absolute
Case 2: ergative
Case 3: superergative / volitive (I like neither term)

Perhaps I'd be better off calling the cases

1: absolute
2: instrumental
3: ergative

Any suggestions/comments?  Is this even really an ergative system?



---
Confused of NC