Re: Help in Determining Asha'ille Typology

Joe sikyal:

> > The four remaining possible groupings are these:
> >
> > A: 1,  B: 2,3,4 = ergative
> > (A is ergative, B is absolutive)
> >
> > A: 1,3,4, B: 2 = accusative
> > (A is nominative, B is accusative)
> >
> > A: 1,3, B: 2,4 = active
> > (A is agentive, B is patientive)
> >
> > A: 1,4, B: 2,3 = ????
> >
> > This last one is what Andreas talked about. However, we should notice that
> > this groups the points that have nothing in common together, which is
> > completely counter-intuitive and unlikely. Andreas' Law of Freaks demands
> > that some language does it, but I don't know what it is.
>
>
> Having just argued against Andreas' side, I would also like to argue for
> it -
>
> Imagine a language, Case 1 is marked by -s, Case 2 by -n, Case 3 by -m and
> Case 4 by -z.  Now imagine, due to phonological changes, -z and -s merge
> into -z, and -m and -n merge into -n. Lets call 1 and 4, A, 2 and 3, B.
> [snip examples]
Of course, phonological merger can make anything happen. Something rather
similar happened in Old French, where nom sg and acc pl were marked by -s,
and nom pl and acc sg were marked by -0 for a while. But such a system is
typologically unstable, and tends to collapse rather quickly.

I do note that your system requires 4 separate markers for each of the
loci mentioned above, and AFAIK this doesn't happen in any natlang.

--
Jesse S. Bangs jaspax@u.washington.edu
http://students.washington.edu/jaspax/
http://students.washington.edu/jaspax/blog

Jesus asked them, "Who do you say that I am?"

And they answered, "You are the eschatological manifestation of the ground
of our being, the kerygma in which we find the ultimate meaning of our
interpersonal relationship."

And Jesus said, "What?"

Reply