In defense of "unergative" (Re: cases)

"Thomas R. Wier" wrote:

> But terminology like 'unergative' verbs do in fact lead to confusion, and
> Dixon has remarked as such in that case (see his _Ergativity_, pg. 235 or so).
> No, on the contrary, inappropriate terminology by definition leads to confusion,
> because it uses a word in such a way as to imply characteristics and qualities
> into the object under discussion that aren't there:  the illocutionary effect is
> wrong.
Actually, the term "unergative" is perfectly reasonable.  "Ergative" verbs are
intransitive verbs whose subjects share structural or semantic properties with the
objects of transitive verbs, e.g. _break_ and _open_:

  The cup broke
  Joan broke the cup

  The door opened
  Joan opened the door

In other words, "ergative" verbs are verbs which function as the intransitive member
in an ergative-type transitivity alternation.  "Unergative" verbs are simply
intransitive verbs which are not "ergative"--i.e., verbs whose subjects share
structural or semantic properties with the subjects of transitive verbs.

The only reason why "unergative verb" now seems like a strange term is because most
American linguists have dropped the term "ergative verb", preferring instead
"unaccusative verb".  (In which case, I suppose, unergative verbs ought to be renamed
accusative verbs, but they aren't...)  Most European linguists have retained the term
"ergative verb", and so for them the meaning of "unergative verb" is still
transparent.

Matt.