QS: PRONUNS AND ERGATIVITY
W.Schulze at LRZ.UNI-MUENCHEN.DE
Tue Feb 17 11:04:40 UTC 1998
I'm currently working on a larger project on what I call "Categorial
Typology" with respect to East Causian languages (ELCs). The output will
be (I hope) a series of seven volumes entitled "Person, Klasse,
Kongruenz - Fragmente einer Kategorialtypologie des einfachen Satzes in
den ostkaukasischen Sprachen" ("PKK", to appear at Lincom (Munich)). The
theoretical framework of PKK (called "Grammar of Scenes and Scenarios"
("GSS") is documented in the first volume ("Die Grundlagen", due
1998,II)), the following volumes treat the morphosyntax of ECLs with
respect to specific categorial components derived from this framework
(see my homepage for more, in case you are interested in things like
Now, the second volume (PKK II, to appear 1998,III) deals with aspects
of expressing "person" in ECLs. In order to substantiate some
typological generalizations concerning personal pronouns and ergative
case marking, I still collect data on ergativily marked pronouns in
languages other than ECLs. What concerns me most are the following
In case, "your" language knows an ABS/ERG dichotomy for persnal
a) Are certain "persons" exempted from the ABS/ERG-dichotomy, in case
the language in question has such a dichotomy in its pronominal system?
E.g., in ECLs we can observe the follwing "splits", among others)
(1 = Sg1, 2 = Sg2, 4= Pl1, 5 = Pl2, I = inclusive, e = exclusive):
ABS/ERG yes no
1, 2, 4e, 5 4e
1, 2 4i, 4e, 5
4i, 4e, 5 1, 2
1 the rest
1, 4i the rest
2 the rest
b) Is there a specific pronominal ergative marker different from the
nominal one, and (in case: yes) how is the distribution of this
marker (markers) with respect to a)?
c) If there is/are (a) special pronominal ergative, do you know anything
about the grammaticalization path for each of them?
d) In case nominal ergative markers appear, are there any restriction
with respect to "person"? E.g., in some ECL nominal ergative morphemes
ooccur only with plural pronouns (or vice versa).
e) In case the ("your") language has mono- or polypersonal agreement on
ea) Is pronominal ergativity matched by the pronominal clitics (cf. the
famous case of Tsova-Tush (Holisky 1987). Thus, do some or all persons
have a ABS/ERG dichotomy via agreement paralleled by the pronominal
paradigms? Are specific persons exempted fromthis dichotomy (most liley
eb) Is the degree of categorial differentiation found in the pronominal
paradigm reflected in the corresponding agreement system (in other
words: Do you have as many morphologically marked "persons" on the verb
as proposed by the pronomil paradigm) If not: Is the
agreement system over/underdifferentiated, and how?
f) Does the language in question have an ergativily marked reflexive
g) Do you know of any system of noun classification that is sensible for
SAPs? Cf. the Kubachi (Dargwa, ECL) example:
4 nus:a d-axul-da
5 u\s:a d-axul-da
but 6 it:e b-axul-sa-b
"They (the people) go."
"They (the animals) go."
It would be very nice if you could provide me with some information
concerning these questions (in case you have them, and in case you find
the time to describe them). Maybe that I have already stored the data.
But it might as well be that something relevant escaped my eyes. Any
reference (e.g. see this or that language...) would be very helpful,
Naturally, I'll post a summary of the problem on the list.
Thank you very much for your cooparation,
= Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulze =
= Institut für Allgemeine und Indogermanische =
= Sprachwissenschaft + Universität München =
= Geschwister-Scholl-Platz 1 =
= D-80539 München =
= Tel.: +89-21802486 (secr.) =
= +89-21802485 =
= http://www.lrz-muenchen.de/~wschulze/ =
More information about the Funknet