|From:||Tim May <butsuri@...>|
|Date:||Thursday, August 14, 2003, 23:43|
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