<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Aptos;
panose-1:2 11 0 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Times;
panose-1:0 0 5 0 0 0 0 2 0 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;}
span.EmailStyle25
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ligatures:none;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-CA" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Addressing the more general question of whether there can be two constructions both of which are transitive, but ignoring the fact that Martin is apparently only interested in his query in cases where there
is argument flagging, I argued in Dryer (1994) that in Ktunaxa (aka Kutenai), both the direct and inverse constructions are transitive, though the direct is about three times as frequent. I believe that there are even stronger arguments for the analogous contrast
in some Algonquian languages. While the obviation systems of Ktunaxa and Algonquian indirectly function to some extent like a flagging system, I doubt that Martin would count them as such.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">I argued in a conference talk I gave in 1995 that the closer in frequency two alternative constructions are, the more likely that both constructions will exhibit transitivity.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Matthew<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black;background:white">Dryer, Matthew S. 1994. “The discourse function of the Kutenai inverse". In </span><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Voice and Inversion</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt">,
edited by T. Givon, pp. 65-99. John Benjamins.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black;background:white"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black;background:white">Dryer, Matthew S.
</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">1995 “Explaining the intransitivity of passive clauses”. Invited plenary talk at Conference on Functional Approaches, Albuquerque.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div id="mail-editor-reference-message-container">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">From:
</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">Martin Haspelmath <martin_haspelmath@eva.mpg.de><br>
<b>Date: </b>Tuesday, July 2, 2024 at 1:34</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">AM<br>
<b>To: </b>Matthew Dryer <dryer@buffalo.edu>, LINGTYP LINGTYP <LINGTYP@listserv.linguistlist.org><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [Lingtyp] languages with accusative/ergative alternation<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p>On 01.07.24 19:00, Matthew Dryer wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Martin,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">I don’t understand why you say “<span style="color:#212121">by definition, a transitive pattern is a dominant one (occurring in more than two thirds of the cases)”. Why can there not be two transitive patterns,
neither of which is dominant?</span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#212121"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#212121">Matthew</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I'm not entirely sure (which is why I posted the query), but it seems to me that the definition of "transitive" requires that there be a single transitive pattern. In English, for example, (i) is dominant over (ii), so we do not say that both are transitive,
and that "at" is an accusative preposition. Instead, we say that "at" is an oblique marker.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>(i) They shot the bear.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>(ii) They shot at the bear.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Lazard (2002) explains how the notion of transitivity can be grounded in the notion of "the major biactant construction" of a language. He does not say explicitly that there can only be one such construction, but it seems to be presupposed. In my (2011)
paper (on S, A, P, T, R), I rely on Lazard, and I also mostly assume that there is just one transitive construction. I was unsure what to do with cases like Yupik (mentioned by Tony Woodbury in this thread), so I mostly ignored them (but I briefly mentioned
Tagalog in n. 12).<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Angute-m(A) nayiq(P) ner-aa<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">man-ERG.SG seal.ABS.SG eat-IND.3SG.3SG<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">’The man is eating /has (just) eaten the seal’<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Angun(S) nayir-mek(P) ner’-uq.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">man.ABS.SG seal-ABM.SG eat-IND.3SG<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">’The man is/has (just) eaten a/the seal’<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">It seems to me that the way Tony labels the arguments here is not well-motivated: Why is ergative-marked "angute-m" an A in the first sentence, but absolutive-marked "angun" an S in the second sentence? Why
is 'seal' a P in both sentences?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">It's logically possible to say that both these sentences are transitive, each with an A and a P, but do we actually want to say that? Do we want to say that the Yupik ABM ("ablative-modalis") is an accusative
case? I'm not sure, so I asked whether any language had been described in this way (does Miyaoka 2012 say that?). Maybe one problem is that making a distinction between a pattern with a dominant member (as in English (i) and (ii)) and a pattern where there
is not clearly a dominant member (as in Yupik) boils down to frequency, and linguists are often reluctant to make such decisions on the basis of frequency of use.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Denis Creissels cites the example of Balinese (from Udayana 2013):<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Cang n-yemak baju ento.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">I ACT-take shirt DEM<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">'I look the shirt.' (Actor Voice, accusative alignment(?))<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Baju ento jemak cang.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">shirt DEM PAT.take I<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">'I look the shirt.' (Patient Voice, ergative alignment(?))<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">However, there is no argument flagging here (so the "alignment" concerns only word order), and the Actor Voice is characterized by a voice prefix, so it's not an uncoded alternation (unlike the English indirective/secundative
alternation, and unlike the Yupik alternation cited above).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Perhaps the issue boils down to how exactly we individuate the relevant constructions. For example, Creissels (2024) often talks about "variants of the transitive construction", which seems to be in line with
Lazard's (2002) presupposition that there is one "major biactant construction", but do we want to say that the two Yupik sentences cited by Tony Woodbury are "variants of the Yupik transitive construction"? I'm not sure.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Thanks for the discussion!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Martin<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">References<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div style="margin-left:24.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:-24.0pt">Creissels, Denis. 2024. <i>Transitivity, valency and voice</i>. Oxford: Oxford University Press (to appear).<span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:-24.0pt">Haspelmath, Martin. 2011. On S, A, P, T, and R as comparative concepts for alignment typology.
<i>Linguistic Typology</i> 15(3). 535–567.<span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:-24.0pt">Lazard, Gilbert. 2002. Transitivity revisited as an example of a more strict approach in typological research.
<i>Folia Linguistica</i> 36(3–4). 141–190. (doi:<a href="https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2002.36.3-4.141">10.1515/flin.2002.36.3-4.141</a>)<span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:-24.0pt">Miyaoka, Osahito. 2012. <i>A grammar of Central Alaskan Yupik</i>. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.<span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:-24.0pt">Udayana, I Nyoman. 2013. <i>Voice and reflexives in Balinese</i>. Austin: University of Texas at Austin. (PhD dissertation.)<span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div id="mail-editor-reference-message-container">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">From:
</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">Lingtyp <a href="mailto:lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org">
<lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org></a> on behalf of Martin Haspelmath via Lingtyp
<a href="mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org"><lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org></a><br>
<b>Date: </b>Monday, July 1, 2024 at 2:00</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">AM<br>
<b>To: </b>LINGTYP LINGTYP <a href="mailto:LINGTYP@listserv.linguistlist.org"><LINGTYP@listserv.linguistlist.org></a><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [Lingtyp] languages with accusative/ergative alternation</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p>Thanks for the comments on my query!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>I was thinking of a contrast between (i) ALTERNATIONS and (ii) SPLITS, where an alternation is a pair of related patterns with overlapping distributions, while a split is a set of patterns that complement each other. Thus, the TAM splits in languages like
Pitta-Pitta (Peter Austin) and Kopar (Bill Foley) do not count here.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Misha Daniel is right that it is not clear how to even identify <span style="font-size:11.0pt">
"accusative/ergative alternations", and for this reason I had asked about languages which have been "described as exhibiting" such an alternation.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt">It seems to me that one needs to specify that by definition, a transitive pattern is a dominant one (occurring in more than two thirds of the cases), so that if there are two competing patterns none of which is dominant, one
cannot identify a transitive pattern – and as a result, there is no way to identify "accusative" or "ergative". A well-known case of a language with no dominant agent-patient pattern (and hence no transitivity) is Tagalog.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt">(This is different for ditransitive constructions, which need not be dominant in this sense, because the comparison is with monotransitive P, aas Misha notes.)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Jürgen Bohnemeyer's example from Hindi-Urdu seems more like an alternation between two ergative patterns (one in which the ergative is "instrumental"), but it also illustrates the difficulty of matching language-particular
phenomena with comparative concepts if the latter are not very clearly defined.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Best,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Martin</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">On 30.06.24 16:07, Michael Daniel wrote:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Martin, </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">I am not sure how to operationalize the notions of accusative and ergative in this context. Assuming one uses the standard procedure of comparing the bivalent pattern to the intransitive one, I guess some
unmarked antipassive constructions would qualify. Thus, in Mehweb Dargwa, East Caucasian, which lacks regular antipassive derivation, the verb 'carry' has two alternative valencies:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Agent-Erg carries Theme-Nom (ergative pattern
<i>on the basis of comparison</i> with X goes)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Agent-Nom carries Theme-Erg (accusative pattern
<i>on the bases of comparison</i> with X goes)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">But, <i>on the basis of comparison</i> with other transitive verbs, the second pattern is intransitive, so this would not qualify as accusative in the usual sense. Yet, I do not clearly see what would be possible
other grounds to identify an ergative / accusative alternation, even in the presence of a TAM or animacy based split, because in your requirement these variables should be controlled for. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">This is different from the situation of secundative / indirective alternation, which is possible to identify in a language because they are identified on alignment-independent grounds (comparison to the encoding
of P). Maybe I am missing something, but I do not see how this is done in the case of the putative ergative / accusative uncoded alternation. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Misha</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">вс, 30 июн. 2024</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">г. в 14:48, Peter Austin via Lingtyp <<a href="mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org">lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>>:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Assuming you do not mean TAM-based split ergativity, e.g. Pitta-Pitta.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Best</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Peter</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">
<hr size="0" width="100%" align="center">
</span></div>
<div id="m_2791204385624991659divRplyFwdMsg">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> Lingtyp <<a href="mailto:lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>>
on behalf of Martin Haspelmath via Lingtyp <<a href="mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, June 30, 2024 1:41:54 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> LINGTYP LINGTYP <<a href="mailto:LINGTYP@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG" target="_blank">LINGTYP@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Lingtyp] languages with accusative/ergative alternation</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Dear typologists,<br>
<br>
Does anyone know of a language that has been described as exhibiting an <br>
accusative/ergative alternation, i.e. where verbs with meanings like <br>
'break' or 'chase' can occur in two constructions such as (1) and (2) <br>
(which are schematic examples, not English)?<br>
<br>
(1) the dog-NOM chased the cat-ACC<br>
<br>
(2) the dog-ERG chased the cat-NOM<br>
<br>
Such an alternation would be analogous to indirective/secundative <br>
alternations, as in the schematic examples (3) and (4).<br>
<br>
(3) they provided food-ACC us-DAT ('they provided food to us')<br>
<br>
(4) they provided us-ACC food-INS ('they provided us with food')<br>
<br>
While indirective/secundative alternations have been described <br>
repeatedly, accusative/ergative alternations are little-known, and seem <br>
to be quite rare. Is this impression correct?<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
<br>
Martin<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Martin Haspelmath<br>
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology<br>
Deutscher Platz 6<br>
D-04103 Leipzig<br>
<a href="https://www.eva.mpg.de/linguistic-and-cultural-evolution/staff/martin-haspelmath/" target="_blank">https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eva.mpg.de%2Flinguistic-and-cultural-evolution%2Fstaff%2Fmartin-haspelmath%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cpa2%40mysoas.onmicrosoft.com%7Cfbd0d937e0024454098608dc99021b32%7C674dd0a1ae6242c7a39f69ee199537a8%7C0%7C0%7C638553481531300351%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Fk%2BOgeldXwuKKViruD6L3V%2BAXojpaM2NZAuKlpWpHdk%3D&reserved=0</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Lingtyp mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
<a href="https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" target="_blank">https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flistserv.linguistlist.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flingtyp&data=05%7C02%7Cpa2%40mysoas.onmicrosoft.com%7Cfbd0d937e0024454098608dc99021b32%7C674dd0a1ae6242c7a39f69ee199537a8%7C0%7C0%7C638553481531308356%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=m50OjoB%2B%2Fq0Ib4wQbl6LoSVObo3TNuuYmqsl5rR6e%2Bs%3D&reserved=0</a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">_______________________________________________<br>
Lingtyp mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
<a href="https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" target="_blank">https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<pre>-- <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Martin Haspelmath<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Deutscher Platz 6<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>D-04103 Leipzig<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href="https://www.eva.mpg.de/linguistic-and-cultural-evolution/staff/martin-haspelmath/">https://www.eva.mpg.de/linguistic-and-cultural-evolution/staff/martin-haspelmath/</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<pre>-- <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Martin Haspelmath<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Deutscher Platz 6<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>D-04103 Leipzig<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href="https://www.eva.mpg.de/linguistic-and-cultural-evolution/staff/martin-haspelmath/">https://www.eva.mpg.de/linguistic-and-cultural-evolution/staff/martin-haspelmath/</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>