accusative and ergative languages

[Patrick C. Ryan]

[ moderator re-formatted ]

Dear Larry and IEists:

----- Original Message -----
From: Larry Trask <larryt at cogs.susx.ac.uk>
Sent: Friday, June 25, 1999 11:33 AM

> On Tue, 22 Jun 1999, Patrick C. Ryan wrote:

>> Even if the earliest morphemes of language were not recoverable as
>> you would maintain, logic tells us that monosyllables would have, at
>> least, predominated.

Larry responded:

> I'm afraid that "logic" tells us no such thing.  This is no more than a
> wild guess.

Pat writes:

It is an inference from the fact that all complexity in this universe is
based on simplicity.

Pat wrote:

>> 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".

Larry responded:

> An isolating language is indeed isolating:

Pat interjects:

Incroyable!

Larry continued:

> no dispute there.  But even a
> monosyllabic language need not lack inflections altogether: there exist
> languages with internal inflection, as in English `sing', `sang',
> `sung'.

Pat responds:

1) English is *not* monosyllabic;

2) The variation i-a-u is *not* an internal inflection but rather a
phonological response to now missing former inflections;

3) No monosyllabic language could "afford" to assign inflectional meanings
to vowels in CVC syllables because the number of available monosyllables
would be unreasonably and impractically reduced.

4) If you still maintain that internal inflection happens in monosyllabic
languages, an example from a monosyllabic language might be more convincing.

Pat wrote:

>> 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 agglutinating stage; and
>> "analytic", for a language we can.

Larry responded:

> Bizarre.  What is the point of trying to classify languages on the basis
> of what we can reconstruct for their ancestors?

Pat writes:

Singularly odd! Does historical linguistics really have a point? Hmmm!

Pat wrote:

>> 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.

Larry responded:

> Hardly comparable.  With PIE, we are reconstructing only 2000-3000 years
> earlier than our earliest substantial texts.  Trying to reconstruct
> 50-150,000 years back is a whole nother ballgame.

Pat writes:

That is your a priori belief and, we have seen, that it cannot be reasonably
supported.

Pat wrote:

>> 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

Larry commented:

> No, not at all.  The facts vary from language to language.  In Basque,
> for example, the absolutive is interpreted as the performer of the
> action if the verb is intransitive, as the patient if the verb is
> transitive.  Same appears to be true of Dyirbal.

Pat rejoinds:

Comments such as these are unresponsive to the question of some "transitive
constructions" being labeled *ergative*.  I proposed a useful employment for
the term "ergative language", the appropriateness of which you and
Ralf-Stefan seem to doubt

Pat continued previously:

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

Larry responded:

> I take it you've never come across Spanish, Italian, Russian or Latin.

> Spanish: <Ha visto la pelicula> `S/he has seen the film.'
> Latin: <Caesarem vidit> `S/he saw Caesar.'

> Accusative noun, verb, no overt subject, perfectly normal.

Pat rejoinds:

I do not see a 'funny face' so, temporarily, I will assume that you are
serious about these remarks.

"Overt" means 'open and observable', and the overt subject of the Spanish
phrase is "he/she" indicated by -0 on [ha]; of the Latin phrase, 'he/she'
indicated by -(i)t. I would think you might have understood that I was
referring to languages which do not code the subject with affixes on the
verb.

Pat continued previously:

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

Larry asked:

> But which languages are like this?

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

Pat responded previously:

>> Perhaps to your satisfaction but not to mine.

Larry commented:

> Not much of an answer, I'm afraid.  The "passive" interpretation of
> ergativity was based squarely on morphology, with no attention to syntax
> -- even though a passive is a syntactic form.  More particularly, it was
> based on the confused and erroneous notion that a grammatical subject
> must always stand in the same case.

Pat responds:

In the sentence mentioned above:  "noun(B)+abs. verb", which is interpreted as
an 'activity is performed by an unspecified agent on B' --- this construction
perfectly meets the definition: "a construction in which an intrinsically
transitive verb is construed in such a way that its underlying object as\ppears
as its surface subject".; accordingly, it is "passive".

Larry further commented:

> For Basque, and for other ergative languages, the "passive" view of
> transitive sentences can be shredded, point by devastating point.

[ moderator snip ]

Pat responds:

Perhaps we should reopen the question of where you have "shredded, point by
devastating point" the view that "for Basque(, and for other ergative
languages,) the "passive" view of  transitive sentences". I saw nothing that
I recognized as doing this in your Basque grammar.

Pat wrote previously:

>>>> 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
>>>> core 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.

Larry responded:

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

Pat questions:

And on what basis would you assert that?

 <snip>

Larry mentioned:

> In Basque, for example, intransitive subjects (absolutive), transitive
> subjects (ergative) and direct objects (absolutive) are all equally
> optional:

> Gizonak mutila jo zuen.
> man-the-Erg boy-the-Abs hit Aux
> `The man hit the boy.'

> Gizonak jo zuen.
> `The man hit him.'

> Mutila jo zuen.
> `He hit the boy.'

> Jo zuen.
> `He hit him.'

> All perfectly normal in context.

Pat comments:

Keine Endung ist auch eine Endung. Surely you must have run across that
someplace. And your translation of "mutila jo zuen" as '(he) hit the boy' is
not preferable to 'the boy was hit'.

 <snip>

> [on my (Larry's) observation that children acquiring English do not go
> through an ergative stage]

Pat commented:

>> 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.

Larry responded:

> We now have a vast body of data on children acquiring English.  And I
> know of no study, not one, which recognizes an ergative stage during
> acquisition.

Pat previously continued:

>> 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.

Larry responded:

> Yes, sure, but a single datum proves nothing.  Children at the two-word
> stage also say things like `Mommy get', meaning `[I want] Mommy to get
> the ball.'  This should be impossible in an "ergative" view.

Pat rejoinds:

If it were "a single datum", you would not have so readily agreed. It is a
common pattern of construction. I am also at a loss to see why 'Mommy get'
(which I would rather interpret as 'may Mommy get *something*' is
"impossible in an 'ergative' view". Zero is, after all, not zilch.

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)