Chris Bates wrote:
> I know there are some systems where the marking of the argument of an
> intransitive verb can be accusative or ergative based on volition. I
> also know in some languages some experiencers can appear as datives
> (although I don't know of any language where this is systematic), eg
>
> to me see her = I see her
>
> If you put all experiencers in the dative case, then (I think) this
> would include the arguments of most stative verbs (eg to be red, to be
> ill, ...) wouldn't it?
In Avaro-Ando-Tsezian lgs (North Caucasus) this happens to verbs of
perception.
> So you could get a three way instead of two way
> split in intransitives:
>
> stative verbs/verbs with experiencer as single argument (argument in
> dative case)
> active verbs when action is volitional (argument in nom/erg case)
> active verbs when action isn't volitional (argument in acc/abs case)
>
> Do you think this is a realistic system? I'm thinking about doing it in
> a conlang. :)
Well, not exactly the same, but a similar can be found in the mentioned
group. Three types of sentences are present (in rough approximation):
1. Subject in ABS for intransitive verbs
2. Subject in ERG for transitive verbs
3. Subject in DAT for verbs of perception.
I want to use this idea in my newest project provisionally labeled as P36.
-- Yitzik