Re: ergative? I don't know...

This one goes in a file!  I've responded interlinearly:

On Fri, 23 Oct 1998, David G. Durand wrote:

> Here's the standard analysis, as I understand it (and for some reason I had
> a very hard time understanding it).
...

>
> There are 3 basic functions that are found in sentences of human languages:
>
> A (most agent like argument, subject of an transitive verb), P (most
> patient-like argument, Object of an intransitive verb), S (Subject of an
> intransitive verb). S may be close to your "Experiencer", though that term
> is also used for something related but diffrent.
>
> These are often marked somehow by morpholoy or syntax, into cases:
>
> i. nom/acc system:
>
> Nominative  (A, S)
> Accusative  (P)
This is how I think I am classifying Teonaht:  it has a nominative that
can be further subdivided into two categories:  Volitional nominative and
non-volitional nominative.  So, as I have ad nauseam explained, you say

                Il jentwar le zef elo cosa
                "the door (P) the man (A) closed,"

or: Le zef il jentwar elo cosa  "the man the door closed"

And "close" would be a volitional transitive.

You can also say:

                Le uehar oua,
                "the woman (A) listened,"

        and "listened" would be a volitional intransitive.


                But:
                Li zef il jentwar nelo ke lis ai aid cosarem
                "the man (S) the door (P) he saw (P) it get its closing"
                because the man is in a passive state of seeing.
                "the man saw the door get closed, or close."


As yet, I don't have a real middle voice, although I think one is
beginning to develop from this passive:

        The door closes.  This would be expressed in T. with a "passive":

                        Li jentwar tsobccosarem [na]
                        The (S) door under closing [is]

                The copula is left off in the present tense,
                and the tendency in this idiom is to omit as well
                the gerundive suffix:  Li jentwar tsobccosa
                                        "the door underclosing."

                This is reconceived by T. speakers as a kind of
                "middle voice verb," so that any verb with prefix
                "hsob/hsop" is de-passified:  "the door undercloses."
                New verb: tsobccosaned, "to be under closing," i.e.
                "to be closed," "to close."

But here I draw away from the point, which is that there are two types of
NOMINATIVE in this nom/acc. language which make a distinction based on
volitionality.  Also, the P can NEVER function in the subject slot.  I.e.,
Teonaht does NOT say il jentwar tsobccosa(rem), "the door (P)
underclosing."  Above, even though the door is actually getting closed,
like a true nom/acc language, it is cast in some form of the nominative
(non-volitional).

Again I ask...What other natlangs do this?  [dead silence]


>
> ii. ergative/absolutive system:
> Ergative    (A)
> Absolutive  (P, S)
>
Definitely not Teonaht.


> iii. active system
> Agent       (A)
> Patient     (P)
> Subject     (S)
Do these constitute three separate cases?  I don't know if T. fits this.

>
> These are the most basic systems. Variations include using different case
> systems for nouns in a sentence and Argument morphemes in the verb (for
> instance nom/acc noun cases paired with ergative/absolutive clitic
> pronouns), different case systems depending on the tense of the verb or the
> presence of some auxiliary: e.g erg/abs in the future, but nom/acc in
> non-future.
>
> Some active (and ergative languages) may differentiate "agent-worthiness"
> in the S argument, so that intransitive sentences like "John kills" and
> "the door closes" use different cases to reflect the difference in
> agenthood.
Definitely:  In T. "kill" would be "volitional transitive" and John would
be an agent or a volitional subject; but "closes" would be nonvolitional
intransitive, or it would be in the passive, and door would be a
participant, or non-volitional subject.

>
> Some languages use one system (ergative or accusative) in one tense, and
> another in another tense (e.g. past tenses erg/abs, non-past nom/acc), some
> use one system on bound verbal pronouns, and the other on fully expressed
> nouns. These are the "split" systems.
These combinations sound just as strange and unnatural as the gyrations
I'm putting Teonaht through.


>
> Many languages have a hierarchy of agenthood something like this (It's a
> postulated universal, but my memory may fail me on some of the later items):
>
> 1p > 2p > 3p > animate (present) > animate (absent) > inimate (present) >
>     > inanimate (absent)
inimate?  intimate or animate?

>
> This may affect the choice of case, based on some dividing line between
> agentive and non-agentive arguments (pick a line on the above, and you've
> got a possible system for deciding whether something is an agent).
>
> A few languages don't use the syntactic functions at all and instead mark
> whether the agent is higher or lower on the relvance hierarchy than the
> patient. this is a rare type, but is found in some Algonkian languages (is
> that the proper modern spelling?).
Algonquin, I believe.  Nah, you're either an agent or a participant in
Teonaht.  Or an object.  I've been all and agent is the best. <G>

The rest snipped, including very clear, interesting summation of trigger
languages.  My gawd, but with the time I've taken here to answer all my
email and respond to issues on the list I could have inputted my verbs
into my webpage.

Yikes.

Sally

 > Anyway, that's my current take on it.
>
It's a good one, David.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sally Caves
scaves@frontiernet.net
http://www.frontiernet.net/~scaves/teonaht.html

Rin euab ouarjo vopy vytssema tohda uo zef:
ar al aippara brottwav; ad kemban aril yllefo
brotwav fenom; vybbrysan brotwav an; he ad
edirmerem brotwav kronom.

"A cat and a man are not all that different.
Both are on my bed; both lay their head on their
arm; both have mustaches; both purr when they
sleep."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++