accusative and ergative languages

[Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen]

On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, Larry Trask wrote:

[Pat Ryan, quoting LT:]

>>> For Basque, and for other ergative languages, the "passive" view of
>>> transitive sentences can be shredded, point by devastating point.

>>> Mutila jo zuen.
>>> `He hit the boy.'

[LT:]

> In English, the utterance `He hit the boy' is *only* possible in a
> context in which `he' has already been identified: otherwise it's
> gibberish.

> And the same is true of Basque <Mutila jo zuen>: it is only possible in
> a context in which the identity of the hitter is already known, and
> otherwise it's gibberish.  In no context whatever could it be
> interpreted as `The boy was hit'.  There *must* be an identified hitter
> in the discourse.

> To express `The boy was hit', Basque uses other constructions.  One
> possibility is <Mutila jo zuten>.  This is literally `They hit the boy',
> and it can be used to mean this, when the identity of `they' is known.
> But equally it can mean `The boy was hit', in a context in which the
> identity of the hitters is unknown.  In this case, it is functionally,
> though not formally, identical to English `The boy was hit'.

> But Basque also has an overt passive: <Mutila jo zen>.  This means
> literally `The boy was hit', and it can be used with no hitter
> identified.  Moreover, this construction does not allow the addition of
> an overt agent: the Basque passive permits no agent.

Excuse my interruption, but I think your discussion is missing the only
point of any interest in this context: Can "Mutila jo zuen" not *come
from* something which *originally* meant, not 'the boy was hit' pure and
simple, but specifically 'the boy was hit by him (e.g., by the one we're
talking about)'? Nobody is claiming that the passive constructions out of
which the ergative grew in a number of languages were restricted to
impersonal use. Incidentally, if they were, there would not have been
anything to put in the case that subsequently got interpreted as a
"transitive-subject, i.e. ergative case".

I don't know a first thing about Basque, though I have been intrigued by
it on many occasions, especially since it offers such a good parallel to
Old Irish in the verb where you apparently have to memorize practically
all forms (which are many) to be able to say even the simplest of things -
and that of course was also what made me stop every time I got started.
>From the primitive and casual books at my disposal I do see that "zuen"
and "zuten" mean 'he had him' and 'they had him' resp. I also believe I
see that such auxiliaries are combined with a particularly short form of
the participles, referred to by Schuchardt as the root of the participle;
and "jo" is 'stick; beat' in its shortest form, says my little dictionary;
and "mutil-a" is 'boy' with the article "-a", but without case or number
marking. Therefore my persistent question: Why can't "mutila jo zuen" and
"mutila jo zuten" reflect a construction that was earlier meant to express
'the boy, he had him hit', 'the boy, they had him hit'? Schuchardt also
gives "zen" to mean 'he was', so that if you gloss "mutila jo zen" as 'the
boy was hit', it seems there is quite a bit of agreement that the verbal
root is a participle by itself. I do not see in what way this makes the
*diachronic* interpretation of "mutila jo zuen" any different from the
Hindi preterites that are based on Sanskrit constructions of the type
"A-Nominative + B-Genitive + PPP/nom." meaning earlier "A was (verb)-ed by
B", but now simply "B (verb)-ed A." Where am I wrong?

I am not saying you have not addressed that question properly elsewhere,
only we are some on this list who do not keep abreast of scholarly
discussion concerning Basque. And the question belongs here right now -
could we have your response to it?

Cheers,
Jens