accusative and ergative languages

Patrick C. Ryan proto-language at email.msn.com
Tue Jun 22 22:19:19 UTC 1999


Dear Larry and IEists:

----- Original Message -----
From: Larry Trask <larryt at cogs.susx.ac.uk>
Sent: Sunday, June 20, 1999 7:31 AM

Thank you for your timely response to my tardy answer.

> On Fri, 18 Jun 1999, Patrick C. Ryan wrote:

>> 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.

> If this were true, then a good reference grammar of Chinese or
> Vietnamese ought to be shorter than a good reference grammar of Russian
> or Latin.  And this does not appear to be the case.

Pat responds:

Actually, I think it may well be the case for Chinese. I have a copy of
Chao's _Mandarin Primer_ (336 pages), which has a Chapter III - Grammar,
beginning on page 33, and *ending* on page 59. I can compare this to Forbes'
_Russian Grammar_, which contains 436 pages of grammar and indices.

>> 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".

> Why?  No evidence.  And what distinction are you drawing between
> `isolating' and `analytic' languages?  The terms commonly mean the same
> thing.

Pat responds:

Even if the earliest morphemes of language werenot recoverable as you would
maintain, logic tells us that monosyllables would have, at least,
predominated. The syntax of these monosyllables would have had to convey
whatever grammar the language had at that point; and this would certainly
resemble languages which are currently termed "isolating".

I prefer (though, of course, you and many others may not) to distinguish the
terms: "isolating", referring to a language for which we can reconstuct no
flectional or aggltuinating stage; and "analytic", for a language we can.

>> 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.

> Why not just say `change'?  Nobody will object to that verb, though I
> still don't understand how an analytic language is different from an
> isolating one.

Pat responds:

Please see above.

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

> Why?  We have no data on the earliest human language(s).  But we do have
> data on languages which have come into existence very recently.  Many
> creoles, such as Tok Pisin, have developed grammatical inflections
> within a generation or two of coming into existence.  Apparently the
> same is true of Nicaraguan Sign Language, which has only existed as a
> mother tongue for about one generation -- though I don't have good
> information on NSL.

Pat responds:

Of course we have no data on the earliest human language in the same way we
have no data on IE but, by analysis, we can reasonably form an opinion as to
what IE must have been like. In the same way, we can analyze current
linguistic data, and form an opinion as to what earliest language must have
been like though, I admit, the process is much more doubtful.

> [on my objection to Pat's claim that an object/non-object distinction is
> tantamount to ergativity]

[ moderator snip ]

> I don't think the concept of an `ergative language' has any real value
> in linguistic analysis.

Pat responds:

I do believe that the term 'ergative language' has a real value in
linguistic analysis --- to differentiate two basic approaches to transitive
constructions:

Language A: Noun(A)+erg. noun(B)+abs. verb
will be interpreted as A performs an activity on B.

Language B: Noun(A)+nom. noun(B)+acc. verb
will be interpreted as A performs an activity on B.

However, in Language A, noun(B)+abs. verb
will be interpreted as an activity is performed by an unspecified agent on B

whereas in Language B: noun(B)+acc. verb is *ungrammatical*.

I would characterize Language A as (at least, essentially "ergative").

 <snip>

>> 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 know no Sumerian.  But, speaking generally, the `passive'
> interpretation of ergativity, once so popular, was discredited years
> ago.

Pat responds:

Perhaps to your satisfaction but not to mine.

> In very many ergative languages, it is trivial to demonstrate that
> transitive sentences are active, not passive.  I myself have done this
> for Basque.

Pat responds:

Perhaps you have done this for Basque but it is certainly not trivial to
demonstrate this for Sumerian, where Thomsen characterizes: "The Sumerian
verbal root is in principle neither transitive nor intransitive, but neutral
in this respect".

And a sentence like:

. . . eg{~}er-a-ni u{3} dam dumu-ni dumu Ba.Ba.g{~]u{10}-ke{4}-ne
ba-ne-sum-ma

must be rendered in English by the passive:

. . . that his estate and his wife and children were given to the sons of
Babag{u}.

>> 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.

> This may or may not be so in some ergative languages, but it is
> certainly not true for ergative languages generally.

Pat asks:

Is there an 'ergative language', presuming by your definition some such
exists, where this is not true?

>> 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 asks:
What evidence might that be?

>> 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.

> Surely you mean `fusional', not `synthetic': agglutinative languages are
> synthetic, but can readily arise directly from isolating ones.

Pat admits:

Yes, you are absolutely correct. My error.

> Fusional languages do not ordinarily arise directly from isolating ones
> because there appears to be no possible pathway other than one leading
> through agglutination.

>> An adverbial phrase specificying the agent seems to me to be an
>> integral step that must be taken before a nominative is developed.

> If that were true, then we might expect to see children acquiring
> English pass through an ergative stage before they grasp accusativity.
> But we don't.

Pat responds:

I am sure you are better read on child language acquisition patterns than I.
Based on what I have observed personally, I doubt your assertion but if
studies have shown this (could you name one?), how can I dispute it.

A sequence like: "Me hurt. Tommy did it" is a virtual ergative so far as I
would judge. I have heard children speak in this way.

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)



More information about the Indo-european mailing list