accusative and ergative languages

[Patrick C. Ryan]

Dear Ralf-Stefan and IEists:

 ----- Original Message -----
From: Ralf-Stefan Georg <Georg at home.ivm.de>
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 1999 5:22 PM

>> Pat:

>> Yes, but if a new verb were formed, e.g. webben (from English 'web'), there
>> is no possibility that it would be conjugated webben, wabb, gewobben.

>> What I consider 'internal inflection' is Arabic yaktubu, kataba, katibun,
>> etc. which applies to any and all verbs, old, and those taken new into the
>> language.

R-S:

> The pattern lost productivity in German. So what ?
> Also, I hardly understand your claim, which basically amounts to refusing
> to speak of technique X in language L, unless it isn't present in each and
> every item in which it theoretically could be present. So, you would refuse
> to speak of, say, vowel harmony in, say, Turkish, because some borrowed
> (and some native) words fail to obey this rule ? ("What I call VH is ...,
> which applies to any and all ... Period. There is an exception, or the
> phenomenon is gradually losing ground, therefore it doesn't extst at all."
> ?????).

Pat:

The distinction I am trying to make, and you are certainly not required to
make it also, is that the pattern "e-a-o" *never* was really "productive" in
German although one might term it "resultative". There was never a time
during which *any* verb in [e] followed this "pattern", or even *any* verb
in /eR/ followed it (weNden, waNdte, gewaNdt).

 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)