Re: Ergative?

> Date:         Fri, 28 Sep 2001 07:26:01 -0400
> From: The Gray Wizard <dbell@...>
>
> > From: Lars Henrik Mathiesen
>
> [snipped earlier posts in thread]
> >
> > However, looking at the constructions in isolation, there's not much
> > to distinguish them, especially if they admit the same word order:
> >
> > Intransitive: Mary:ABS/NOM sleep:INTR
> >
> > Active:       John:NOM loves:ACT Mary:ACC
> >
> > Passive:      (By John):INS (is loved):PAS Mary:ABS/NOM
> >
> > Ergative:     John:ERG loves:ACT Mary:ABS
> >
> > (These construction names and role markings are a bit dodgy, I know,
> > but I hope the meaning comes across).
> >
> > If you're just presented with one of these constructions, and not
> > allowed to check what other constructions the language has, how do you
> > distinguish between passive and ergative? (And you don't know that the
> > verb is marked for passive if you don't have the unmarked form).
>
> It seems to me that these examples blend three possibly orthogonal concepts
> 1) valency (intransitive/transitive), 2) voice (active/passive) and 3) case
> (accusative/ergative).  Let's tease them out:
>
> First for an ergative language (we will ignore split ergative for the
> moment)
>
> (1) Active Intransitive: Mary-ABS sleep-ACT
> (2) Active Transitive:   John-ERG love-ACT Mary-ABS
> (3) Passive:             Mary-ABS love-PASS (John-INS?)
>
> Then for an accusative language
>
> (4) Active Intransitive: Mary-NOM sleep-ACT
> (5) Active Transitive:   John-NOM love-ACT Mary-ACC
> (6) Passive:             Mary-NOM love-PASS (John-INS?)
>
> When one asks how to distinguish between a passive and an ergative form,
> what two sentences are you attempting to distinguish?
The way I interpreted Vasiliy's question, the point is that in
relation to intransitive sentences, the active transitive in an
ergative language:

  (1*) Active Intransitive: Mary-ABS sleep-ACT-ITR
  (2*) Active Transitive:   Mary-ABS love-ACT-TR John-ERG

looks much the same as the passive in an ergative language:

  (1*) Active Intransitive: Mary-ABS sleep-ACT-ITR
  (3*) Passive:             Mary-ABS love-PASS John-INS

or indeed in an accusative language:

  (4*) Active Intransitive: Mary-NOM sleep-ACT-ITR
  (6*) Passive:             Mary-NOM love-PASS John-INS

until you get enough other information to decide which it is.

Especially, and that was the context from Tom Wier's post, in an
ergative language that has both active and passive, and uses ergative
case marking for non-core agents too:

  (1*) Active Intransitive: Mary-ABS sleep-ACT-ITR
  (2*) Active Transitive:   Mary-ABS love-ACT-TR John-ERG
  (3+) Passive:             Mary-ABS love-PASS John-ERG

How do you decide which set of verb endings are active transitive, and
which are passive?

> If we assume the hypothetical you suggested in the last paragraph
> quoted above, then it would seem to me that (2) and (3) are no more
> indistinguishable than are (5) and (6) (assuming "you don't know
> that the verb is marked for passive if you don't have the unmarked
> form"). I would then be led to question, again by analogy, how one
> distinguishes between a passive and an accusative form?
The accusative form (5) is easily distinguishable from the passive (6)
because the agent in (5) has a different case marking than
intransitive and passive subjects.

> I don't believe that split-ergativity affects these examples since the split
> is generally along some semantic divide, although some splits could
> certainly confuse these matters.
Agree on both counts.

Lars Mathiesen (U of Copenhagen CS Dep) <thorinn@...> (Humour NOT marked)

Reply