accusative and ergative languages

Patrick C. Ryan proto-language at email.msn.com
Tue Jun 22 23:20:06 UTC 1999


Dear Ralf-Stefan and IEists:

 ----- Original Message -----
From: Stefan Georg <georg at rullet.leidenuniv.nl>
Sent: Monday, June 21, 1999 8:21 AM

R-S wrote:

> While it is true that I do read Russian with ease, (and I did read at least
> the first title years ago; and it is true that Klimov has interesting and
> well-informed things to say on the various alignment-phenomena in the
> languages of the world; add his Ocherk obshchej teorii ergativnosti) I
> could do this job for you, but I feel disinclined to do so here and now.
> Reason # 1: I don't see why I should look for arguments defending a
> position which I find unattractive for a host of reasons, most of them
> having to do with an empirical-based general rejection of the idea of
> stadialism.

> The second reason is that it seems to me that you hope that Klimov advances
> reasons and arguments unbeknownst to you, which Larry and I won't be able
> to deal with no matter how hard we tried, to win the day. No way.
> But you say that you came to Klimov's conclusions independently, so the one
> thing we should discuss here is your line of argumentation, for this is the
> only thing which matters.

Pat responds:

You are very kind to say that my "line of argumentation . . . matters" but,
in practice, most ideas which I have advanced as a result of my own attempts
at applying logical analysis to the questions have been summarily
dismissed --- I believe, primarily on the basis of my lack of documentable
qualifications.

Now, we are already straining the patience of the IEists to pursue these
general matters so I propose that you read my Proto-Language essays, in
which I do attempt to provide "arguments", and let us take these matters to
the Nostratic list which may be glad for a little activity.

Pat continued previously:

>> 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.

R-S responded:

> There's a lot to disagree with here. Whether there is really a "neutral"
> type of alignment, seems very doubtful to me (note that this would be a
> language where A, S, and O [I assume that you are familiar with this
> convention; if not, see Dixon's publications on ergativity] are treated
> *always* *alike* in every respect.

Pat, aside:

I have questioned this as well, and prefer to group the neutral and active
types together.

R-S continued:

> Neutral case-marking is OK, neutral
> cross-referencing properties OK, but some subsystem of such a language, and
> be it word-order, will always give away a definite alignment, ERG, or ACT).
> A "class" type is equally dubious, noun classification being a
> morphological technique which can do a lot of things (inter alia, it can
> enshrine accusative or ergative alignment, to be sure), but as such, a
> morphological technique, it stands outside of the core issue.

Pat responds:

I do not believe it stands outside the core issue. But I agree that it is
primarily morphological.

R-S continued:

> The general idea of stadiality is, as I said, doubtful in itself, to say
> the least, moreover, as I and now Larry have repeated several times, there
> is no sense in the overall label of "ergative language", this being only a
> (sometimes, if properly understood) useful impressionistic designations for
> languages which show ergative features somehow "salient" for the average
> European eye (e.g. ergativity by case-marking, where the whole thing was
> first detected and named).

Pat responds:

Please see my response to Larry Trask on the same subject.

>> Pat responded:

>> 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.

R-S responded:

> The major lines of argumentation would do ;-)

>> I have told you above where I agree with him.

> Yes, you agree with the bottomline ("stadiality is a fact"). But why ?

Pat responds:

Because, I believe as a matter of principle, that simplicity must precede
complexity --- at least once.

Pat wrote:

>> 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.

R-S commented:

> This passage is hard to understand. For the record: I don't say that any
> views, just by virtue of being far from the mainstream, must a priori be
> wrong. The mainstream can be wrong (and is so very often, e.g. on the
> illusion that there is something like the Altaic family of languages, just
> to place my favourite running gag).

> My fishmonger-example wants to express that it doesn't matter who utters a
> view, but only the arguments do.

Pat responds:

I have advanced arguments in my essays. I would be glad to take up any point
mentioned therein if the list (or the Nostratic list) permits it.

R-S continued:

> And, the other way round: a position is, imho, not automatically immune to
> criticism just because it is held by otherwise well-reputed figures. They
> can do wrong. The roster of eminent scholars, asserting that Turkic and
> Mongolian are genetically related languages, is impressive and deservedly
> so. Yet they are wrong.

Pat:

Agreed.

>>> 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 answered?

> Because I don't have to, being able to defend my points on my own. If you
> want a reading-list on ergativity, I could give you one, of course.

Pat responds:

Gosh, I thought we were discussing Sumerian (:-#)

>> Pat answered:

>> 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 the markings
>> of the maru: may be fairly well established, there is absolutely no
>> agreement on what grammatical role these endings signify.

R-S answered:

> There is hardly any overall agreement about anything in linguistics, given
> that a lot of journals in the field still accept anything they are handed
> over. If there is disagreement on this particular point on your side, state
> it and give your reasons.

Pat responds:

Economically, let me refer you to the easily obtainable Thomsen, page
115-116.

>> Pat responded:

>> 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 responded:

> No contradiction here. No, I'm not going to expose "my" definition of
> aspect here (but you may with profit read, e.g., Comrie's handy book on
> the issue). Only so much: if a language displays a contrast in aspect, *and*
> possesses a systematic means of coding progressivity, then the progressive
> forms will either coincide with those of the imperfective aspect, *or* build
> upon them (i.e. they will belong, morphologically speaking, to the
> "imperfective" system of that language, never to the perfective system).
> Progressivity is functionally incompatible with perfectivity.

Pat responds:

I am not surprised that you and I disagree here since aspect seems like a
topic unapproachable without Fingerspitzengefuehl and everyone's fingers are
subtly different but, for the record, I believe an English sentence like:

"I am/was eating up the cake"

is, simultaneously "perfective" and "progressive".

R-S continued:

> (OK, for clarity's sake: the gist of "my" definition of aspect is that,
> while perfective aspect describes an action as an unstructured whole,
> imperfective aspect draws attention to its internal structure, i.e. having
> or not having beginning and end, filling a certain stretch of time, being
> divisable into phases, being the pragmatic background of a narration aso.
> for a subset of the notions which are most often associated with
> imperfective aspect as against perfective aspect).

> Note that this is not germane to my argument on an ergativity split in
> Sumerian, whether or not the interpretation of maru:-HamTu as aspect-coding
> inflections will hold water is not my issue here, nor do I regard myself
> competent enough to decide this issue. There is a split, and is along the
> line of *some* TAM-category-distinction. That's enough. The aspect-show is
> in a different theatre.

>>> 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 interrupted:

>> 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 responded:

> I see no reason to expose the scattered sources I'm using at the moment,
> for this will inevitably lead to a rather tiring exchange of the type: "Oh,
> that shoddy book, no wonder you found that drivel there".

Pat responds:

I would be pleased to learn of *one* source that designates the i- as a sign
of maru:!

R-S continued:

> What  *would* be useful though, would be if you named the sources you
> trust, so that I can confine my search for instances proving my point -
> that Sumerian is a split-ergative language, like any other one, thus
> removing one cornerstone of stadialism - to these. No doubt I'll find them
> there as well.

Pat responds:

My primary source of information is Thomsen, who rarely takes a position but
outlines various competing views. Her discussion of i- (pp. 163-166) does
*not* list anyone who so believes.

<snip>

R-S continued:

>> 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.

> If this is correct, this could eventually force me to admit (no, not that
> Sumerian is not a split-ergative language, it is) that my chosen example
> was not unambiguous enough to drive my point home (since the scribe *could*
> have intended his from to be read /indu/).

Pat responds:

See Thomsen pp. 162-163.

R-S continued:

> Let's, then, look at further examples. I)f you don't mind, I'll help myself
> to the ones you supplied yourself a few lines down in connection with the
> pronouns:

>> 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'.

> I coul d be arrogant and say: sapienti sat. Sumerian shows accusative
> features. But I think I'll explain ;-):

> - en in both cases, the intransitive and the transitive one,
> cross-references what we latinate accusative-minded Europeans usually call
> a "subject"; or, iow, it cross-references *both* the agent of the
> intransitive, as well as that of the transitive sentence above. That's
> pure-vanilla accusativity, and nothing else. For, under ergative
> conditions, both constituents are kept apart, by whatever means, yet here
> they aren't, they are  treated alike in terms of verbal cross-referencing,
> and that is what accusativity is all about. Get the message ?

Pat responds:

Yes, that would be the consensus view of Sumerologists but, of course, this
is only true of relatively Late Sumerian. I discuss these matters in the
Sumerian Grammar available at my website.

R-S continued:

> What it exactly is, which conditions this split in Sumerian may be discussed
> elsewhere (for I think we have tried the patience of this IE list enough with
> Sumerian, especially since I am a tiro in this field, however, tiro or not, I
> usually can tell an instance of split-ergativity when I see one, and here I
> do see one), aspect or shmaspect, the point is only that *some* split exists,
> as, I repeat, in *every* other "ERG-Language", the reverse not being the case
> for ACC-Languages, now it's your turn.

Pat asks:

Could you refer me to a linguists who has sureveyed every other ergative
language and determined that splits always occur?

<snip>

> My sources are, i.a., Hayes, Thomsen, Diakonoff, Poebel, Deimel,
> representing different generations of Sumerologists with different
> backgrounds and linguistic standing, certainly also with different
> standings as connoisseurs of the language. However, if you dislike one or
> more names on this list, feel free to say so, but if the only Sumerian
> grammar you trust is that which you have written yourself, please share it,
> instead of complaining on others. The best grammar is, here as elsewhere,
> the text corpus itself, and I think the examples discussed so far, as long
> as they don't turn out to be  entirely cooked up, make it perfectly clear
> that Sumerian is no exception to our general knowledge of "ergative
> languages". You will have to come up with a different one, which should not
> be too difficult, since you are reconstructing the mother of all languages
> ;-)

Pat responds:

I have respect for everyone who has tried his hand at unriddling Sumerian.

I am sharing a Sumerian Grammar (but still in progress) at my website.

"Father of all languages": I am a sexist pig.

<snip>

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