accusative and ergative languages

[Patrick C. Ryan]

Dear Larry and IEists:

 ----- Original Message -----
From: Larry Trask <larryt at cogs.susx.ac.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 1999 2:55 AM

> On Mon, 14 Jun 1999, Patrick C. Ryan wrote:

Pat wrote:

>> I continue to assert that complexity arises out of simplicity;

Larry commented:

> You may continue to assert this all you like, but what does it have to
> do with ergativity, or with linguistics at all?

Pat answers:

Sorry to take so long to respond to your comments.

I am almost sure that you will want to refine my understanding of the word
"simplicity" but for whatever it may be worth, I would characterize an
isolating language as simpler than a flectional one.  In keeping with the
schema you presented recently, I think an isolating type language, which
Klimov would connect with his neutral and active "types", must have preceded
agglutinating, flectional, and analytic "types".

That is, of course, not to say that an analytic language might not be able
to revert (is that better than "regress" or "devolve"?) to an isolating
type.

I assert that I conider it impossible for an inflecting type language to
have been what wer should expect to see at the very earliest stage.

Pat continued:

>> and since I have found that the relationship between the object and
>> the verb is primary, which loosely conforms to an ergative model of
>> development,

Larry objected:

> No, it doesn't.  A division between objects and non-objects is
> accusativity, not ergativity.  Ergativity is a division between
> transitive subjects and all else.

Pat responds:

First, let me say that I am well aware that, your being a specialist in
Basque, gives you a deep perspective on ergativity that few members of the
list will share through work in the own particular specialities but still I
must tentatively disagree.

And, of course, it seems to me that this is another case of differening
definitions. I prefer a functional one, you, I believe, prefer a formal one.

For me, a passive of the form "the man is being slandered", displays an
underlying object of a transitive verbal action, whatever the formal marking
of "the man" may be.

I will speak only of Sumerian if you do not mind. In that language, so far
as I know considered by most as an ergative language, a two-element sentence
of the form Noun + Verb(transitive) will, in nearly all cases, have to be
interpreted as a passive. And frankly, I am not sure that this analysis is
not more appropriate even to Verbs which would normally be considered
intransitive or stative --- but let us not get off onto a side-topic.

I assert that the relationship is closer between an object and transitive
verb in an ergative language because the relationship (frequently OV) and is
immediate and direct. The ergative agent, IMHO, can best be regarded as a
*missible* adverbial adjunct to the verbal phrase, consisting of the Obj +
V, having no more importance to the verb than an adverbial phrase denoting
the target or manner of an intransitive verb of motion.

Pat continued:

>> I would also assert that, at least once, an "ergative stage" must
>> precede any "accusative stage" or a mixed system.

Larry objected:

> Unsubstantiated assertion.  You might, with equal justification, assert
> that accusativity must precede ergativity in all cases.  If anything, it
> is this last statement which is better supported by the evidence.

Pat responds:

I find it no more unlikely than to assert that a synthetic language is not
going to develop "directly" from an isolating one. An adverbial phrase
specificying the agent seems to me to be an integral step that must be taken
before a nominative is developed.

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)