accusative and ergative languages

[Stefan Georg]

>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.

Come on, no fishing for compliments. I mean it: your line of argumentation
matters, not whom you agree with ...

>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.

I disagree, since the question of stadiality, resp. the discussion whether
accusative languages must have of necessity passed through a (however
organized) ergative stage *does* matter for Indo-European studies. And
non-IE parallels or counterinstances *are* relevant for that. I can't think
of any sane IEist who would disagree (for students of rhethoric: this
strategy of mine is called immunization ;-), we are not discussing possible
external relations of IE, are we ? Anyway, we will soon reach the end of
this thread, since, without having read what follows, I'm sure I'll find
there that you now fully agree with me that Sumerian is no exception to the
general rule that all "ERG" languages display some signs of accusativity.

>Pat, aside:

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

Uh-oh ! Are you sure you know what the active type is all about ?

>Pat responds:

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

The core issue is *what is done*, the morphological technique tells us
*how* it is done.

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

I see I can't shatter this belief, but you have failed so far to
demonstrate why on earth ergativity is something simpler than accusativity.

>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.

If it has to do with ergativity and its synchronic and diachronic typology,
I don't see why this should be inappropriate for this list. Ergativity is,
after all, a phenomenon found in IE languages (some of them, at least).

>> 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 (:-#)

Ergativity.

>>> 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.

Shoot, I just brought the copy I'm using back to the library, and by the
time you read this I will be in Bonn, where the local copy has been stolen.
So, you will have to quote the passege, I'm afraid. Note, however, that
Thomsen is fairly positive on *split*-ergativity in Sumerian.

>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".

There may be aspect-theories on the market which would have to agree with
that. In the framework I'm using, the construction would still be
imperfective (by virtue of being progressive), and telicity (this
construction being telic in nature) would fall outside the domain of aspect
proper, but it doesn't hurt if we agree to disagree here.
(Just as an aside, since I can't resist: perfective aspect is associated
but does not necessarily coincide with/imply completion of the action
described; what makes this example still imperfective is that it describes
an action lasting for a discernable period of time during which you were at
each given moment eating the cake; you were, however, not eating it *up* at
each given moment during this stretch of time; you see, aspect theory is
even more difficult than alignment typology ;-)

>Pat responds:

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

As I said, the fault was mine alone, so I am this ominous source.

>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.

I was the only one - for half an hour ...

>> 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/).

>See Thomsen pp. 162-163.

No, I literally don't see this (s.a.).

>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.

Just tell us here what is true of relatively early Sumerian. Some people
have a slow web-connection or even have to pay for it.

>Pat asks:

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

No, I cannot refer you to such a person, but the typological investigation
of ergativity has now reached a stage where some assertions are possible
(though moot points remain, to be sure). The history of the investigation
of ergativity is a model history of the successive demolition of myths.
First, the myth of ergative constructions being passive (and
ergative-languages, if I'm allowed to use this sloppy term here, do not
know such a thing as autonomous passives; some do) went overboard, then the
myth that ergativity is something primeaval, something, so to speak, with a
mesolithic aroma, was assigned the dustbin as its habitat, because language
change may take the way from or to ergativity; finally, the idea that
ergativity is something which pervades every pore of the languages where it
is found got its share.

No, nobody has investigated each and every "ERG-language", but ever since
the phenomenon of ergativity splits (and there being more than just
case-marking which is can display this phenomenon) became widely known,
information keeps pouring in from all sides that split-ergativity is the
norm, very probably (I'm dead sure) the exclusive state-of-affairs for all
languages which show some kind of it.

How can this ever be proven ? Just like any other language universal it
cannot, given that we don't have and never will have access to *all* human
languages of the past, the present and the time to come;  it can only be
*dis*proven by showing a fully ergative language (there are fully
accusative languages, though). You said Sumerian has no traces of
accusativity, I showed that it has. That's how the game is played. Try a
different language, and I'll show you the splits.

We may now safely regard the discussion of Sumerian, a perfect
split-ergative language, as settled. I won.

Stefan