Ergative vs. accusative

[CONNOLLY at LATTE.MEMPHIS.EDU]

Pat said, while discussing "ergative" languages:

>> [3]
>>> However, in Language A, noun(B)+abs. verb
>>> will be interpreted as an activity is performed by an unspecified
>>> agent on B

>> [4]
>>> whereas in Language B: noun(B)+acc. verb is *ungrammatical*.

Leo replied -- too obscurely, it would seem:

>> what you said about combining this verb with the patient alone simply isn't
>> true.  Some ergative languages happily omit the agent, others do not.  So
>> what I've numbered [3] above will be legal in some ergative languages but
>> not in others.

>> Conversely, [4] is perfectly grammatical in many accusative languages.
>> Couldn't think of an example good enough to convince you.  But look at
>> this post.  Must've seen stuff like this before, right?

Pat responded:

>Well, I agree with your first comment. But *most* ergative languages treat
>the agentive as a missible adverbial adjunct of the verb. Perhaps there may
>be a question of these languages being "truly" ergative?

>I am unaware of any accusative language in which this contsruction is
>grammatical. As you know by now, Larry indicated that verbal inflections
>should not be considered an expression of the subject in languages like
>Latin. I consider this position unjustifiable.

Should've looked a bit closer, Pat.  In discussing [4], I intentionally used
several sentences which lack overt subjects, as I just did again.  And the
subject is not marked on any of the verbs.  Are they grammatical?  Rather not
decide myself; let the rest of our merry group decide.

Leo

Leo A. Connolly                         Foreign Languages & Literatures
connolly at latte.memphis.edu              University of Memphis