Re: non-accusative, non-ergative, non-active ...

On Fri, 8 Mar 2002 13:41:04 -0500
Andreas Johansson <and_yo@...> wrote:

> If I had a language with no case affices, where word order in sentences with
> a transitive verb is SOV and in ones with an intransitive SV, could that
> language be meaningfully be classified as accusative, ergative, active or as
> not any of those three?

Now this is spooky - I'm just planning such a lang! I was thinking
of it as ergative, but now I realise that that's because it's a
development/modification/rectification/rewrite of an ergative one.

Actually that's a lie - I've just noticed yours is SOV/SV, while mine is
VOS/VS. Same difference, though - my train of thought still applies -

I think ergative is a reasonable description since the S of an
intransitive verb is marked in the same way (appearing next to the V),
as the O of a transitive verb. Personally I think it's a nice natural
way for ergativity to arise.



What is 'active' used in this sense btw? If I was to make a guess,
propose the following: in the following schematic Si="Subject of
intr. vb", and St/Ot = "Subject/object of tr. vb.", and the star
indicates  which are formally identified by the system

Accusative  Si* St* Ot
Ergative    Si* St  Ot*
?Active?    Si  St* Ot*

OK, that doesn't seem like a very useful system
The two other possibilites are
            Si* St* Ot*  - completely nonfunctional?
            Si  St  Ot   - ah, makes more sense - is this active?

Is it the last one, or am I on completely the wrong track?


stephen

who's spent far too much of the day posting to conlang.... ;)