Re: Ergativity

Pablo David Flores wrote at 2003-08-10 12:48:52 (-0300)
 > 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?
 >
 >

No-one's answered this, as far as I can see.  I think the answer is:
by observing how the arguments of inherently intransitive verbs are
treated.