14.1523, Qs: Ergative Langs

[LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List:  Vol-14-1523. Tue May 27 2003. ISSN: 1068-4875.

Subject: 14.1523, Qs: Ergative Langs

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Wayne State U.<aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Dry, Eastern Michigan U. <hdry at linguistlist.org>

Reviews (reviews at linguistlist.org):
	Simin Karimi, U. of Arizona
	Terence Langendoen, U. of Arizona

Home Page:  http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, Wayne
State University, and donations from subscribers and publishers.

Editor for this issue: Naomi Fox <fox at linguistlist.org>
 ==========================================================================
We'd like to remind readers that the responses to queries are usually
best posted to the individual asking the question. That individual is
then strongly encouraged to post a summary to the list. This policy was
instituted to help control the huge volume of mail on LINGUIST; so we
would appreciate your cooperating with it whenever it seems appropriate.

In addition to posting a summary, we'd like to remind people that it
is usually a good idea to personally thank those individuals who have
taken the trouble to respond to the query.

To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at
http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.html.

=================================Directory=================================

1)
Date:  Fri, 23 May 2003 10:26:17 +0000
From:  Jonathan Bobaljik <jonathan.bobaljik at mcgill.ca>
Subject:  Q: Valency changing in Ergative langs

-------------------------------- Message 1 -------------------------------

Date:  Fri, 23 May 2003 10:26:17 +0000
From:  Jonathan Bobaljik <jonathan.bobaljik at mcgill.ca>
Subject:  Q: Valency changing in Ergative langs

I am looking for Ergative languages (i.e., in their case and/or
agreement morphology) which have a construction or constructions which
are describable as:

	(i)	having a derived subject / 2 -> 1 advancement
	(ii)	being transitive on the surface

Such a situation could arise, for example, if the language has passive
(2->1 advancement) and applicative formation (3->2), and they can
combine, e.g. something like:

	Dog-Erg   chased	cat-Abs	barn-Loc
	'The dog chased the cat into the barn'

	Cat-Abs   chased-pass  barn-Loc
	'The cat was chased into the barn'

	Cat-Erg    chased-pass-appl    barn-Abs
	'The cat was chased into the barn'

Passive of a double-object construction would work as well, so long as
the resulting construction is transitive, not subj + PP.

Similary, an unaccusative construction feeding an applicative
construction would work too.

Note to clarify: passive feeding causitivzation yields a transitive
clause on the surface (criterion (ii) above) but fails to meet
criterion (i).

Please direct responses to me, I will post a summary if there are
sufficient responses to warrant it.

Many thanks,

-Jonathan

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-14-1523