accusative and ergative languages

[Patrick C. Ryan]

Dear Ralf-Stefan and IEists:

 ----- Original Message -----
From: Ralf-Stefan Georg <Georg at home.ivm.de>
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 1999 3:51 PM

First let me say that I am happy that R-S has again joined our discussions.
Though we infrequently agree, he always contributes a fresh thought or two
which stimulates me to re-examine my premises.

<snip>

[PR previously]

>> Pat interjects: (after I once again pointed out that no split-free erg lg
>> is known, but split-free nominative lgs do exist):
>> Oh, so "our" type of languages, accusative-type, can be *split-free* but
>> "their" type of languages, ergative-type, cannot be. Akkusativ ueber alles!

[R-S]
> So much to say here. Overlooking the rhetoric, involving national
> stereotypes and an allegation of racism on my side,

[PR interjects]
Ralf-Stefan, ease up. Do I have to put in a 'funny-face' whenever I attempt
to say something funny?

First, I understand the distinction between "ueber alles" and "ueber
a/Allen". Second, I would not dare to stereotype you; for me, at least, you
are unique, a rara avis. Third, since almost everyone agrees that 'race' is
a term which signifies *nothing* (of course, I do not think so but please
let us leave that aside), 'racism' is only a misdemeanor not a felony; and,
I certainly do not think you are a 'racist' on the basis of anything you
have written that I have read --- in any case.

[R-S continued]
> I should at least say
> that I think I said more than once that I find the notion of "ERG/ACC
> "type" of languages" rather unfruitful and only marginally meaningful.
> Also, I'm not claiming that "our" languages (maybe the "Standard Average
> European" ones) are entirely free of ergative structures. Larry has pointed
> out marginal ergativity in English by drawing attention to the behaviour of
> the -ee suffix. There is also marginal ergativity in German, as I found out
> recently (no, I don't know whether this has been noticed before by someone,
> but it probably has); for your amusement, here it is: look at the verbal
> prefix /zer-/ (roughly translatable as "asunder" othl.), denoting that some
> object is dissolved or dismembered by the verbal process. When prefixed to
> a transitive verb, you'll find that the Patient is the undergoer of
> dissolution: zerstoeren, zerschlagen, zersaegen aso. aso., when the verb is
> intransitive, it is S which is dissolved/dismembered: zerfliessen,
> zergehen, zerschellen, zerspringen aso. (those may be fewer). Maybe there
> are more prefixes of this kind, but I haven't majored in German like you,
> so you could look for more.
> The message is that, if you look hard enough, it will be possible to find
> more "hidden ergativity" is languages commonly held as split-free ACC,
> though you usually have to look harder here than in so-called ERG lgs. when
> you are after instances of accusativity. So far, the empirical fact that no
> split-free ERG language seems to be known, othoh split-free ACC lgs. do
> exist, is still valid and to shatter it, you'll need empirical work showing
> that it is not correct.
> Defending ideology by trying to allege that the opposite position is also
> mere ideology is not the way to win over people. In this case it is
> ideology (yours) against empirical facts.

[PR]
All good points. I am wondering how you would react to the proposition that
'passive' in ACC languages fulfills a roughly analogous role to 'splits' in
predominantly ERG languages? 'Splitting', AFAICS, seems to be a method of
fine-tuning the indication of directness (and intentionality) of the
agentivity, and I am wondering if other mechanisms in ACC languages are not
really functionally if not formally equivalent.

The fact that some ERG languages have what appears to be a 'passive' is,
IMHO, not a valid objection to this proposition.

[PR previously]

>> What you seem not to be able to grasp because of your unfamiliarity with
>> languages like Sumerian is that the ergative "subject" is frequently NOT
>> EXPRESSED. And, I am not even sure that "subject" is a useful term to
>> apply to relationships between ergative and nominative languages.

[R-S]
> I'm not trying to appear as an expert on Sumerian, which I happily admit
> not to be, though I'm pretty much convinced that the examples I gave from
> this language earlier this year managed to show that Sumerian is not a
> pure, split-free ERG lg. They were from the literature, part of which you
> recommended yourself, and you could not show that I misunderstood something
> found there due to my lack of knowledge of the language. But, then, every
> grammar is only a secondary source, and the real answer will, here as
> elsewhere, only be found in the primary data of the texts themselves.
> That "subject" is frequently not expressed in Sumerian is irrelevant to the
> question (in fact to any question surrounding any kind of ergativity
> debate). It can be left unexpressed in quite a range of languages, be they
> dominantly ERG or ACC. On the question, whether "subject" is a useful term
> here, a lot has been said during this thread, which I won't try to repeat
> here. I'm with you that it maybe a potentially misleading term, only
> insofar a host of definitions of this traditional term are on the market.
> But once we get our definitions clear, there should be no real reason for
> not using this (or any other traditional) term in this discussion.

> OK, nuff said, I'm looking forward to your book on ergativity ;-)

[PR]
As you may have intuited from the ongoing discussion of the "superordinate"
verbal category, it may not be possible to reach agreement on a definition
or even a term for which a definition is needed!

My 'hidden agenda' is that, because I believe I can see that CVC(V) roots
can be analyzed into S-V combinations, I am almost forced to consider the
relationship between S and V primary, and V with A secondary.

Now, let me say, just for the record, that, of course, there is no
relationship between S and SUBJECT as we have been discussing it.

Pat

PATRICK C. RYAN | PROTO-LANGUAGE at email.msn.com (501) 227-9947 * 9115 W. 34th
St. Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 USA WEBPAGES: PROTO-LANGUAGE:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803/index.html 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)