--- In conlang@yahoogroups.com, JS Bangs <jaspax@G...> wrote:
>
> 2006/1/24, Isaac Penzev <isaacp@u...>:
> > Hello,
> >
> > having started P47 project, I met a problem. The lang is intended
to have
> > three basic types of a simple sentence: absolute (for
intransitive verbs),
> > ergative (for transitive verbs) and dative (for perceptive
verbs). In
> > indicative mood it goes smooth. How then it works in imperative?
If
> > indicative "The hunter killed a wolf" and "The boy hears his
father's voice"
> > may be glossed as "wolf is.killed hunter-ERG" and "father-GEN
voice is.heard
> > boy-DAT", will imperative "Kill the wolf!", "Hear my voice!" be
rendered as
> > "wolf let.it.be.killed you-ERG", "my voice let.be.heard you-DAT"?
IIRC in
> > Georgian imperative in fact coincides with aorist, so "Give me
some wine!"
> > is the same as "You have.given me (some) wine!" Any confirmation?
Any
> > alternatives?
>
> It seems to me that the simplest thing to do for an ergative
language
> is simply to not have a morphological passive. In ergative langs the
> ergative case is more peripheral than the absolutive, so
> "passivization" is simply omitting the optional ergative argument:
>
> wolf-ABS kill me-ERG
> "I kill the wolf"
>
> wolf-ABS kill
> "The wolf is killed"
>
> In fact, passivization in an ergative lang would actually imply that
> the ergative argument is promoted to absolutive, and absolutive is
> made peripheral--analogous to how in accusative langs the acc. is
> promoted to nom., and the nom. is made peripheral:
>
> wolf-ABS kill me-ERG
> "I kill the wolf"
>
> me-ABS kill-PASS to wolf-DAT
> "I kill the wolf"
>
> me-ABS kill-PASS
> "I kill"
>
> Calling this "passive" is probably a bit esoteric, though. IIRC the
> proper term for this kind of construction is "unergative".
This is the more common detransitivization process in ergative
languages, and it is called "anti-passivization" rather
than "passivization"; also, the voice is called "antipassive voice"
rather than "passive voice".
The erstwhile ergative argument (the agent, e.g.) is promoted to
absolutive, while the erstwhile absolutive argument (the patient,
e.g.) is either omitted or demoted to an oblique -- an adpositional
phrase or some oblique case.
"Unergative" is something else; in split-S (split-intransitive)
languages, intransitives may be unergative or unaccusative, depending
on whether what they lack is a patient or an agent.
> English actually allows unergative syntax, though there's no
morphology for it:
>
> Active: "We slaughter sheep easily."
> Unergative: "Sheep slaughter easily."
>
> > -- Yitzik
> > from frosty Ukraine with love
>
> My relatives in Romania tell me that it's -20 C there. Is it the
same
Tom H.C. in MI