Re: THEORY: Ergativity and polypersonalism

Michael Poxon wrote:


> Mm. Omeina does this too, but I don't see any particular reasons why
> natlangs should do this. Mind you, four ergative languages is a pretty
small
> sample.
Hmm. You may be right. 4 langs (2 of which are closely related) are to
little to decide. Anyway, I like polypersonalism, I'm just not quite sure if
I can handle it properly. My aesthetic aim is to create a naturalistic
conlang, complex enough to make impression of a natlang/lostlang, but not
too complicated so that I could be semi-fluent in it. And it must be nice!
The current attempt is #41, and I'm still hesitant! (I know. My wife says
I'm a boring perfectionist.)

==================

damien perrotin wrote:

> Chechen is ergative and has verbal desinences, yet it is not
> polypersonnal.
Ah, good. I have looked at its description. It seems it totally lacks
personal agreement, only a noun class one. One more thing to think over.

> On the other hand a features of French (definitely
> accusative) can be considered polypersonnal.
Oh yes, French polypersonalism keeps on inspiring me!

==================

Thomas R. Wier wrote:

> Well, for starters, Georgian isn't an ergative language -- it's
> split-S in its nominal morphology, and mostly nom/acc in its syntax.
I know it, in theory. But for practical purposes one may treat phrase
constructions in aorist as a typical ergative one. And don't forget about
inverse subject marking on some verb forms. I mean prefixes like m-, g-, gv-
denoting subject. Anyway, I know too little Georgian to argue with a
specialist <no sarcasm meant>.

> The
> confusion arises in part because the case of the agent argument in the
> aorist series is usually called in the non-Kartvelophone literature
> 'ergative'; Georgians themselves call it _mot'q'robiti_ 'narrative' case.
In Russophone literature it is 'povestvovatel'nyj' (narrative) too.

> Secondly, Johanna Nichols in her book _Linguistic Diversity through
> Space and Time_ says that in fact quite the opposite tends to be the
> case:  languages said to have an ergative alignment favor dependent
> marking, and thus tend *not* to mark both arguments on the verb.
Ok. Taken into consideration. But a tendency (even not a universal) is not a
law, is it? ;)

> Of the
> 28 ergative languages in her sample, 16 were dependent marking, and
> only four were strongly head-marking (including Abkhaz,
This face is familiar

> Wishram and Tzutujil
A short info on geography and genealogy, please. I have not found these
names in my Linguistic Encyclopaedical Dictionary.

Thank you all, guys. Your input is appreciated. I keep on choosing the best
features!

-- Yitzik