accusative and ergative languages

[Patrick C. Ryan]

[ moderator re-formatted ]

Dear Ralf-Stefan and IEists:

 ----- Original Message -----
From: Ralf-Stefan Georg <Georg at home.ivm.de>
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 1999 5:52 AM

Thank you for your interesting (to me, at least, and I do not mean that
sarcastically in the slightest) response/

R-S wrote:

> Again without stage-directions:

 <snip>

> So, it would be enlightening to learn *what* the *specific* lines of
> Klimov's argumentation are, you agree with. So far, we have only heard the
> bottomline and the fact that Klimov was a deservedly prominent linguist.
> Where's the beef ?

Pat responds:

Ralf-Stefan, because of your background, you are obviously going to be able
to leaf through _Tipologija Jazykov Aktivnogo Stroja_  or _Printsipy
Kontensivnoi Tipologij_  much more felicitously than I. My Russian is
rudimentary, and though I can struggle through a passage, you can much more
easily pinpoint what you may disagree with specifically. If you feel Klimov
has erred grievously, let me know where and I will try my best to defend him
(if I agree with that particular point).

As far what I agree with, my website makes very clear that I subscribe to
Klimov's idea of a progression in development in language through
neutral-active-class-ergative-nominative types. Klimov believes, and I
agree, that this progression is *necessary* ab origine.

Pat wrote:

>> I was simply pointing out, since you obviously missed my point, that
>> highly qualified linguists do disagree; and so, your opinion (and even,
>> occasionally, the consensus) may or may not be found ultimately correct
>> even as the "consensus" once firmly rejected the laryngeal theory in any
>> form.

R-S responded:

> That's a truism. What is interesting, is which particular things about the
> synchrony and diachrony of ergative traits in observable languages
> allow/force/disallow/prevent us from daring a determinist statement as
> that which you brought forward.

Pat writes:

I have written since this posting on the reasons I consider important in
judging the probability of this process. We can pick this up on another
posting if you like.

R-S continued:

> The analogy you mention is irrelevant. While it is true enough that today's
> communes opiniones once were universally rejected, the only thing which
> follows is that we should use the notion of "truth" sparingly. What does
> not follow is, that every communis opinio of today will of necessity be
> debunked one day. But you carefully evade the task to expose Klimov's (or
> your, where you differ) line of argumentation.

Pat responds:

I evade nothing. And why I should feel it incumbent on me to defend every
last jot and tittle of Klimov's views perfectly escapes me. I have told you
above where I agree with him. And the point of agreeing with him (or
mentioning him), is only that he is an eminent linguist who has come to
conclusions on *some* subjects similar to my own independently reached
conclusions.

But you cannot have it both ways. You have consistently implied that some of
my views are so far from the mainstream that, a priori, they must be wrong.
This takes the insufferable form of "linguists agree that ..." as if my
views may be equated with those of the fishmonger you mentioned above and no
linguist would hold them. Klimov is one linguist who does hold views that I
share, and this effectively debunks the notion (on this idea anyhow) that it
is somehow intellectually disreputable to believe that certain laguage types
grow naturally out of other language types.

Pat wondered aloud?

>> QED. Just what do you believe your proved?

R-S answered:

> That Sumerian is just another split-ergative language, since you seem to
> doubt my (oh, not *my*, I could refer you to *eminent* linguists ;-)

Pat, aside:

And why do you not if such exist?

R-S continued:

> assertion that, while non-split ACC-languages do exist, non-split
> ERG-languages are not known. You asked for the split in Sumerian, I gave it.

Pat responds:

Run it by me again; your split fell into a crack.

Pat complained:

>> And, I would like to ask you a question in view of your snide aside about a
>> "non-linguist observer". Is it your opinion that no one is entitled to be
>> considered a linguist, even an amateur linguist, if he/she does not possess
>> a PhD in Linguistics?

R-S answered:

> No, this is patently not my opinion, especially since I was an excellent
> linguist even before I was handed over my PhD diploma, which rules out
> this possibility ;-) ;-) (< --- see these !).

Nur ein Blinder koennte sie uebersehen!

R-S continued:

> It is, however, true that not every scholar who took part in the advancement
> of our knowledge of Sumerian, could be classified as a linguist in the modern
> sense. This is perfectly OK with most of them, I'm pretty sure, no offense
> intended. Linguistics would not be without the great philologers. The same
> holds for other disciplines as well, where modern linguistics (especially
> typological linguistics) sometimes has the right and duty to "correct"
> (better: adjust) the findings of the great philologists/grammarians (or
> better: not what they *found*, rather how they interpreted it). And it is
> certainly true that notions of ergativity, not to speak of split-ergativity,
> did not play a major role in the earlier days of Sumerology, i.e. well into
> this century, let alone the cross-linguistic typology of these phenomena
> (yes, I am aware of truly linguistic treatments of Sumerian, which do exist).
> So, I would not be disparaging, say, A. von Gabain calling her Alttuerkische
> Grammatik the work of a non-linguist.  It is, and she knew it, and
> nevertheless it is a gold-mine for any linguist working on Old Turkic, I know
> of no linguist who could say different things about it, but the linguist's
> task is different from that of the pioneer philologist and grammar-writer
> (and, of course, linguistics is a discipline which sometimes makes
> progresses). Hope this makes that clear.  Anyway, I'm happy to accept the
> label of "Non-Sumerologist" for myself.  Are you a Sumerologist ? (Gonzalo,
> are you still with us ?)

Pat comments:

Thank you for the clarification. Philologists propose, linguists dispose. I
understand you perfectly, I think.

Pat asked:

>> As for your characterization of the Sumerian imperfective system, which
>> is properly called the maru: inflection *not* imperfective, just what
>> characteristics do you *believe* it has that qualify as ACC?

R-S responded:

> Some Japanologists of my acquaintance (and some text-book authors) promise
> to kill everyone who dares to speak of a "verb" in Japanese in their
> presence, since these things are, of course, "properly called" /dousi/.
> What is this about ?

Pat answers:

Since you are writing of what Sumerian is or is not, I would think you might
have understood that the point of my remark was that, although th markings
of the maru: may be fairly well established, there is absolutely no
agreement on what grammatical role these endings signify.

R-S continued:

> The idea of typological linguistics is to *compare* languages, resp. their
> structural makeup. In order to be able to do this, exotistic terminology is
> best avoided.

Pat quips:

Exostistically speaking, I would have to agree.

R-S continued:

> True enough, perfect matches between verbal (or other) categories among
> languages in terms of their functions are rarely encountered. However, to
> ensure comparability (with the usual disclaimers) a modernization of
> terminology is always to be wished for. I can and will object to your
> objection if, and only if, you (or someone else) will point out why this
> "maru:"-inflection may, under no circumstances, be regarded as a verbal
> category encoding imperfective aspect, as opposed to perfective aspect
> encoded by the HamTu-inflection (you see, I am myself a great
> "terminology-dropper").

Pat responds:

Yes, you may have dropped something here. To make this simple, why not give
me your definition of "imperfective aspect", and I will attempt to find a
maru: sentence that may be interpreted non-imperfectively. Personally, I
believe *most* maru: indicate a progressive nuance rather than imperfective
aspect.

R-S wrote:

> You highlighted *believe* in your above response. Well, just as a small
> philosophical aside, of course everything which we think to *know* is
> really something we *believe*, but we may *believe* some things with
> slightly greater confidence than others, iow., that's what science is
> about. If you want to discuss this further, let's transfer this to the
> radical-constructivism-list.

Pat responds:

Let's not and say we did.

R-S continued:

> What makes me *believe* this, is data like the following: while it seems to
> be clear that case-marking (and some people think that ergativity is only
> about case-marking; however, I think highly enough of you not to assume that
> you are of this lot; moreover, after Wolfgang's postings here, noone else
> should be) in Sumerian operates ergatively regardless of TAM category, verbal
> cross-referenceing doesn't, it is just this which makes up for an ACC residue
> in the language. To wit:

> lugal-le Hi-li ib2-dim2-me. "The king fashioned the wig"
> The king is case-marekd as ERG (-(l)e), and the wig is ABS, so, in terms of
> case-marking a perfect ERG construction.
> The verb form, here given in transliteration, is morphologically to be
> analyzed: i- (conjugation prefix for maru: or imperfective (horribile
> dictu),

Pat interrupts:

This is certainly not the interpretation of *any* Sumerologist, linguist or
philologist, of whose ideas I am aware. Where did you get it?  No one says
i- is a conjugation prefix for maru: (or imperfective!) unless you got this
from Gonzalo (?).

R-S continued his analysis:

> -b- "personal affix for third person *inanimate*", so patently
> cross-referencing the patient here (cross-referencing the king would
> require the animate PA -n-), -dim- "The Root", -e imperfective suffixe (or
> maru:-suffix, now you be quiet ;-).

> Now, let's look at an intransitive imperfective sentence:

> lugal i3-du. (case-marking is of course not ergative, i- the maru:-marker).

> In order to have an ergative organization of verbal cross-referencing of
> constituents, we should expect the *patient* in the transitive sentence
> above, being treated *the same way* as the intransitive agent (some prefer
> "subject") in the last example, i.e. by being cross-referenced as -b-. It
> isn't. Actually it isn't overtly  cross-referenced at all, though some
> Sumerologists prefer to insert a zero-affix cross-referencing the agent
> here at the end of the suffix-chain. Bog s nimi.

Pat responds:

The consensus view is, indeed, that -b- in this position is supposed to
reference an inanimate patient. Why you might think that lugal, which means
'king', and is probably as agentive as any noun can be, should be referenced
by -b- totally escapes me. If anything, it would be referenced by -n-, which
is, in the consensus view, connected with animates.

Then you write: "we should expect the *patient* ... ".  What typlogist has
enunciated this doctrine? Why should the animate subject of an intransitive
(two-element) sentence be expected to be marked the same as the *inanimate*
patient of a transitive (three-element) sentence??? Where did you get this?
Or do you consider yourself a typologist? The key fact that you pass by
unremarked is that the subject of the second construction is in the
absolutive; its ending is -0. Therefore, your "case-marking is of course not
ergative" is simply incorrect. The case marking is ergative, which calls for
the agent of an intransitive verb and the patient of a transitive verb to be
marked with -0. Additionally, the consensus view is that du is an irregular
maru: of g[~]en so it needs no special maru: inflection.

Another point is that one group of Sumerologists considers various vowel to
represent oral as well as nasal articulations derived from -n. i{3}-du
*could*, according to them, represent *i{3}(n)-du.

R-S summarized:

> The bottomline, the imperfective/maru:-system shows ACC-verbal
> cross-referencing by virtue of treating transitive patient and intransitive
> agent/suffix *differently*, the very gist of the definition of ergativity,
> which, I hope, I won't have to rehash here.

> Note, for completeness' sake, that this state of affairs doesn't repeat
> itself in the perfective/HamTu-conjugation.
> And, being myself, a stubborn: QED.

Pat responds:

As might be obvious by the corrections I have made above to your "analysis"
of these Sumerian constructions, I continue to question what you have
demonstrated.

The very facts you have detailed above have led me (but not many
Sumerologists) to question whether -n- and -b- are patient/agent
cross-references. If there are not cross-references, then your argument has
very flat feet.

Pat questioned previously:

>> I am also puzzled by your idea that Sumerian pronouns "operate on a fully
>> ACC basis" since , e.g. the 1st and 2nd persons ergative g[~]a[2].e and za.e
>> contrast with 1st and 2nd persons absolutive g[~]a[2] and za in the same way
>> nouns show an ergative in -e and an absolutive in -0. Perhaps you could
>> explain your ideas in greater detail.

R-S responded:

> It is true that g[~]a[2].e and za.e are formally ergative cases, by virtue
> of -e. However, I'm unaware of a systematic contrast between ergative and
> absolutive forms (i.e. without -e) used in a clear-cut ergative way in the
> language.

Pat responds:

That can hardly be my fault.

As a matter of fact, pronouns used as objects are rarely expressed as
independent morphemes though a few examples are recorded in late (or
mangled) Sumerian but they are, for better or worse, there.

However, your argument still fails because the consenus view is that in a
sentence like

g[~]a-e i-ku{4}-re-en, 'I entered'

(Yes, the -e here is another problem.)

the -en cross-references the intransitive subject.

In the transitive sentence, the -en is supposed to cross-reference the
agent:

g[~]a-e sag[~] ib-zi-zi-en, 'I am raising (my) head'.

R-S continued:

> No doubt this reflects my superficial knowledge of it. Various
> sources assure me that what seem to be "absolutive" forms  g[~]a[2] and za
> are late Sumerian, and explicable as phonetically expectable reflexes of
> the longer (and earlier) forms. Even then, they are used in ERG and ABS
> functions indiscriminately, like the longer ones before.

Pat asks:

And what sources are those? And why would g[~]a.e develop into g[~]a when we
see this no where else where -e is employed. Your sources have seriously
misinformed you.

R-S continued further:

> It would help your case if you could demonstrate with text examples that
> g[~]a[2].e and za.e are confined to ERG function, or better, that g[~]a[2]
> and za are, in Classical Sumerian (2600-2300 BCE) used in ABS function, i.e.
> as intransitive subjects and patients of transitive verbs. I.  for one, don't
> know whether this is the case, but you seem to know, so it should be
> legitimate to ask you for examples. Until they come forth (in which case I
> will give this up happily), I will take this phenomenon as the second
> instance of an ergativity split in Sumerian, though admittedly the first one
> mentioned is the stronger one.

Pat answers:

Your first problem is that you want to make a distinction (transitivity and
intransitivity) for Sumerian verbs that is not really appropriate; these are
not categories of the Sumerian verb in a real sense.

R-S sums up:

> To conclude: I stand by my "belief" that there is no such thing as a fully
> ERG language, i.e. one without any splits, as opposed to fully ACC
> languages. Sumerian is no counter-example. Any takers ?

Pat responds:

I have already expressed myself on "pure" anythings. In the case of
Sumerian, however, you have not demonstrated any accusative features.

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)