accusative and ergative languages

[Patrick C. Ryan]

Dear Ralf-Stefan and IEists:

 ----- Original Message -----
From: Ralf-Stefan Georg <Georg at home.ivm.de>
Sent: Saturday, July 10, 1999 5:03 AM

R-S wrote previously:

>>> Having to be rendered by the passive in English is not the same thing as
>>> "being passive in nature".

>> Pat responded:

>> How about explaining "passive in nature"?  Is that a Platonic idea?

R-S then responded:

> As you might have observed, I put double quotes around this expression, the
> most widespread functions of which are:

> - the expression is not mine, but used by others, and I use it only not to
> complicate the discussion, assuming everyone knows what I'm talking about

> or

> - the expression is handy, but admittedly imprecise, I only use it since I
> don't want to put too much effort in terminological precision at this
> point, having different things to communicate (admittedly a vice, but
> normally tolerable when speaking to attentive and knowledgable people)

Pat responds:

All very well and good. Having explained next to nothing, perhaps you will
now tell us how precisely *you* were using "passive in nature" and what in
God's name it is supposed to mean to you, to those you may be quoting, or
anyone else including me.

R-S continued:

> I was reacting to some claim of yours, namely that ergatives are - now what
> was your expression ? I don't recall, was it "really passives", "always
> former. i.e. reanalyzed p.s", "p.s in nature", "p.s by nature". Hell, I
> dunno. Something to this effect, at least. The important thing is that I
> managed to point out that this, i.e. the ergative-as-passive-claim, however
> phrased, is wrong, and Larry Trask, who has also a well-known publishing
> record on the issue, has spoken the definite word about this here.
> Pat, this is, alas, a familiar pattern: when one's theory gets into dire
> straits, some aside discussion on irrelevant points is opened, obviously
> with the intention to show weaknesses of whatever kind in the opponent's
> standing, hoping that this will cloud the correct and justified remarks he
> might have made on the relevant points before. This may work in some
> election campaign, but not here, sorry.

Pat responds:

Yes, you are absolutely correct. This is a familar pattern indeed. When
challenged for an argument, you sidestep the issues of the question by
conveying that someone you like (here, Larry Trask) "has spoken the definite
word about this here". If Larry could speak the definite word about
everything, then this list would be a waste of time. We could just subscribe
to his newsletter for the latest ex cathedra rulings on all our troublesome
questions.

Now, when Larry recently quoted Dixon about the nature of the ergative, he
conveniently neglected to mention that Dixon acknowledged that there were
currently practising linguists --- not amateur linguists like myself ---
still defending the passive interpretation of ergative constructions. I
asked Larry where he had "shredded" this interpretation, and to my
knowledge, got no answer. If I missed the "shredding", perhaps you will be
kind enough to rehearse his performance for us. I have seen nothing by
Larry's vehemence and your allegiance to support the idea that the ergative
should not be interpreted as a passive.

R-S then continued:

> To answer your question: "passives in nature", as used by me, is neither a
> Platonic idea, nor a Wittgensteinean prototype, nor a correct description
> of anything I may happen to think, it is just shorthand for a bundle of
> concepts I don't share. And, above all, it is bad English. Should we open a
> new thread about this, or shouldn't we better return to ergativity and your
> misconceptions about it, such as "there are ergative languages without any
> splits" athl. ?

Pat concludes:

That Ralf-Stefan is incapable of defining the term he introduced: "passive
in nature". By the way, being a native speaker of English, I can assure you
that in my dialect, "passive in nature" is *not* bad English.

And to answer your -- I hope not purposeful -- distortion of what I wrote,
let me say explicitly that I did not assert "there are ergative languages
without (any) splits". I asserted that Thomsen did not, at least in her
grammar, identify splits in Sumerian, which you seemed to think she had. I
then invited you to identify them in Sumerian if you *could*.

You might review your own procedures for employing quotation marks. Your use
of them on "there are ergative languages without any splits" strongly and
falsely implies that I wrote this in the context of a judgment on the
question.

 Pat

PATRICK C. RYAN (501) 227-9947; FAX/DATA (501)312-9947 9115 W. 34th St.
Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 USA WEBPAGES:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803 and PROTO-RELIGION:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803/proto-religion/indexR.html "Veit
ek, at ek hekk, vindga meipi, nftr allar nmu, geiri undapr . . . a ~eim
meipi er mangi veit hvers hann af rstum renn." (Havamal 138)