accusative and ergative languages

[Patrick C. Ryan]

Dear Larry and IEists:

 ----- Original Message -----
From: Larry Trask <larryt at cogs.susx.ac.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 1999 5:36 AM

[ moderator snip ]

[LT]

> OK, then -- try Japanese.  Japanese does not code subjects in the verb,
> and yet omission of the subject is perfectly normal in Japanese, but an
> object is still interpreted as an object.

[PR]

In my experience, many Japanese speaking English make "excessive" use of the
passive which reflects the fact that the subject is deleted in the Japanese
from which they are roughly mentally translating.

So, if it is the point about "Noun+acc. Verb" being "ungrammatical" in an
accusative language without an expressed Noun+nom. (including
cross-reference in the verb), I guess we should ask: "Is Japanese
accusative?"

Thirdly, an object in Japanese, is normally marked by [o] but. In the proper
context,

e{'}iga ga (subjective) suki{i} desu

will be translated as "I like movies" even though [ga] identifies a subject.

Now, with only a slight difference of nuance,

go{'}han o (objective) tabema{'}shita and

go{'}han wa (topical) tabema{'}shita

will be translated as: "I have eaten dinner".

I really do think that Japanese is not the best language to illustrate your
point.

<snip>

 [PR]

>> 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 appears as its surface
>> subject"; accordingly, it is "passive".

[LT]

> No, not so.  See below.

[PR]
That definition is from your own dictionary.

> [LT]

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

> [PR]

>> 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.

[LT]

> That's probably because I haven't written a Basque grammar.
> I have, however, written elsewhere on this point.

[PR]

Well, _The History of Basque_ will generally pass for a grammar in my
opinion. Well, where did you do the "shredding"? In a Basque cookbook
(:-{})?

[LT]

> [on my Basque example]

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

> [PR]

>> 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'.

[LT]

> Sorry, not so -- not so at all.

> In English, the utterance `He hit the boy' is *only* possible in a
> context in which `he' has already been identified: otherwise it's
> gibberish.

[PR]

Rather overly broad! I have heard conversations that go along the lines of
'He hit the boy' with the adressee responding, 'Who hit him, John or Phil?'
Unless you consider clarification a gibberish-process.

[LT]

> And the same is true of Basque <Mutila jo zuen>: it is only possible in
> a context in which the identity of the hitter is already known, and
> otherwise it's gibberish.  In no context whatever could it be
> interpreted as `The boy was hit'.  There *must* be an identified hitter
> in the discourse.

[PR]

Also not: 'The boy was hit (by someone known)'?

[LT]

> To express `The boy was hit', Basque uses other constructions.  One
> possibility is <Mutila jo zuten>.  This is literally `They hit the boy',
> and it can be used to mean this, when the identity of `they' is known.
> But equally it can mean `The boy was hit', in a context in which the
> identity of the hitters is unknown.  In this case, it is functionally,
> though not formally, identical to English `The boy was hit'.

[PR]

Well, obviously, according to you, Basque makes a fine distinction in
definiteness between singular and plural constructions.

[LT]

> But Basque also has an overt passive: <Mutila jo zen>.  This means
> literally `The boy was hit', and it can be used with no hitter
> identified.  Moreover, this construction does not allow the addition of
> an overt agent: the Basque passive permits no agent.

[PR]

I suspect but cannot prove that there is *also* a modal nunace here.

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)