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

At 11:35 PM 10/23/98 -0500, David G. Durand wrote:
>At 7:45 PM -0500 10/24/98, Sally Caves wrote:
>>On Fri, 23 Oct 1998, David G. Durand wrote:
>>> 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)
........[snip]...........
>Splitting S arguments but agent-worthiness is
>certainly done. I've read of it in some "active languages" (ones with 3
>cases for A, P, and S). Of course if you split this function in an active
>language, you end up with _four_ cases, unless you re-use your "A" case on
>intransitive verbs as well.=20
........[snip]...........
>>> iii. active system
>>> Agent       (A)
>>> Patient     (P)
>>> Subject     (S)
>>
>>Do these constitute three separate cases?  I don't know if T. fits this.
>
>These would be 3 separate cases. I was trying to list cases on the left,
>and roles on the right, with case names chosen as traditional within that
>kind of system. I guessed on the names of the cases for active systems
>'cause I couldn't remember
With respect, this is not my understanding of what is generally meant by
"active languages".  According to Barry J. Blake (_Case_) and R.L. Trask (_A
Dictionary of Grammatical Terms in Linguistics_), active systems, like
nominative-accusative and ergative-absolutive systems, have only _two_ cases
(or rather, two types of marking, whether it's case marking on the nouns,
agreement marking on the verbs, or whatever) for the three argument types S,
A and P.  All three types mark A differently from P.  Where they differ is
in how they mark S:
- In nominative-accusative systems, S is marked the same as A.
- In ergative-absolutive systems, S is marked the same as P.
- In active systems, some S arguments are marked like A and others like P.

Active languages differ in what criteria they use to determine whether the S
of a given verb takes A or P marking.  In some active, e.g. Guaran=ED, it's
basically dynamic verbs vs. stative verbs; in others, e.g. Lakhota, it's
basically volitional vs. non-volitional.  Furthermore, all active languages
seem to have some arbitrary exceptions to whatever criteria they use.  To
further complicate matters, a few active languages have what's called "fluid
intransitivity", in which some intransitive verbs can take _either_ A or P
marking for their S argument, depending on the degree of volitionality in
the specific situation.

The kind of system you're talking about, with three distinct types of
marking for the three argument types, is generally referred to (by Blake,
Comrie, and others) as a "tripartite" system.  Such systems are fairly rare,
and are apparently always limited to some subset of NPs in a given language;
there don't seem to be any natlangs that have such a system for all classes
of NPs.  (Although one of my conlangs, Meitzanathein, does have an
across-the-board tripartite system.)

However, I agree with what I gather is your main point: that the system
Sally has devised for Teonaht doesn't exist in any known natlang (which is
why it's hard to figure out what to call it, though to me "split nominative"
sounds reasonable), but that it nevertheless doesn't sound particularly
"unnatural".  In fact, it sounds natural enough to make me wonder if there
might have been such languages but there just don't happen to be any
currently extant.  (I've often wondered which of the apparent gaps in
language typology are "real" -- that is, rooted in actual language
universals -- and which are accidental, caused only by the vagaries of what
languages happen to have gone extinct at particular times.)
-------------------------------------------------
Tim Smith
timsmith@global2000.net

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."
-- The Wizard of Oz (MGM, 1939)