Re: Formal vs. natural languages (was Re: Oligosynthetic languages in nature.)

My point was that 'ergative' may be a misleading label (especially for one
who knows the etymology) but linguists put up with it because that's the
label we use. Likewise for the label 'oligosynthesis'. I was *not* trying to
start a discussion on the suitability of the label 'ergative'.

I also objected to Jörg's disparaging remark about Whorf, but I hope that
*that* (at least) was clear.

On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Paul Kershaw <ptkershaw@...> wrote:

> ----- Original Message ----
> > "ergative" seems ripe for ridicule; what does this case have
> > to do with "work"?
> >
> > Dirk
>
> It depends on what you mean by "work." If you're using the common
> definition ("Most people work for eight hours a day"), not a lot. If you
> compare the physics definition (force exerted in moving an object), it's
> more sensible, although still not exact. "Active" might be better, but
> that's used elsewhere.
>
> -- Paul
>

Replies