Re: ergative/accusative

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 21:05:44 -0500, Reilly Schlaier
<schlaier@...> wrote:

>are there any languages (natural or otherwise) that treat agent and object
>the same?
>maybe i just havent been paying attention and missed it
As I recall, there was some Burman language -- it may have been Lolo or Lahu
or Lisu -- mentioned in "Subject and Topic" which, in transitive clauses,
marked no distinction between Agent and Patient.  Unfortunately on-line
references backing this up are hard to find (at least, hard for _me_, right
_now_); and I have returned the copy of Li's et al.'s "Subject and Topic"
which I had borrowed.

The example given, in that language, was something like "man tiger bites"
and "tiger man bites".  The sentence meant the same thing regardless which
word-order was used; and the same sentence would be used whether the man
bit the tiger or the tiger bit the man.  The addressee was just expected to
know that it was unlikely for a man to bite a tiger.

Also, as other responders have mentioned, I recall hearing that some Iranian
language also doesn't mark that distinction.

I believe I've also read of some South American language which also doesn't
make that distinction; but its verbs have one or two detransitivized form in
which the distinguished participant -- the one still explicit -- is known to be
the agent (or known to be the patient).  So if you say "Jack Jill hit" or "Jill Jack
hit" and think your audience may not know you meant Jack was the one who
got hit, you can follow it up with "and Jill hit".

Sorry I don't have the names of the examples.  I hope you can track down a
copy of "Subject and Topic" and look up the Burman language I mentioned;
that's the best I can do right now.

Reply