Re: THEORY: Ergative syntax

Hi!

Jesse Bangs <jaspax@...> writes:
> Now, in Hiksilipsi this is relevant because I want to restrict
> NP-exraction in relative clauses, but I was flummoxed as to which
> argument should be extractable.  If I'm correct, and the absolutive is
> the external argument of the verb, then it makes sense that only
> absolutives are extractable in relative clauses.  Is this correct?  Any
> real-world examples that anyone knows of?
I don't know about examples but can only speak of my intuition.

I'd agree that because configurational nom-acc language compose the
verb + acc phrase first and then add the (therefore external) nom, I
would expect that abs-erg language do it the other way around, i.e.,
the composition order is (verb + erg) + abs.  This should be natural
since the top-level sentence always needs abs here.  So yes, the
absolutive argument should be extractible.

To check this, you might want to find composed infinitives in ergative
languages.  In English, German etc., you have infinitives like `to
hold milk' showing that the accusative is bound to the verb first
forming a `composed, now intransitive verb'.  It is ungrammatical to
add the nominative first: *`The bottle holds'.  If you find examples
in ergative languages that show that the composition is vice versa,
since the ergative is always added first, you'd be assured that you'd
be right to view the absolutive as external.

Unfortunately, I know no ergative language well enough.  Thus no help,
just thoughts.

Maybe the cases in Georgian should be renamed then to internative and
externative. :-)

**Henrik

Reply