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, June 15, 1999 3:09 AM

Pat wrote:

>> G. A. Klimov, who has your credentials, and who is rather highly regarded
>> in Russia, asserts an ergative stage for language, and I subscribe to his
>> interpretation.

R-S replied:

> Appeal to authority. The least impressive way of reasoning of them all. By
> far.  Si tacuisses.

Pat resonpds:

How clever to respond in this way! As if I was asking you to subscribe to
Klimov's ideas simply because he is an eminent linguist!

I was simply pointing out, since you obviously missed my point, that highly
qualified linguists do disagree; and so, your opinion (and even,
occasionally, the consensus) may or may not be found ultimately correct even
as the "consensus" once firmly rejected the laryngeal theory in any form.

Pat asked:

>> Would you mind detailing the non-ERG features you know in Sumerian?

R-S answered:

> Consistently ERG in terms of overt case marking in all TAM categories,
> enough to impress a non-linguist observer. However, ACC in terms of verbal
> cross-reference in the imperfective system, no doubt.
>  Furthermore, the personal pronouns operate on a fully ACC basis, even in
> terms of case marking. Sumerian is, like all the other "ERG-lgs", really a
> split-ergative language. QED.

Pat responds:

QED. Just what do you believe your proved?

And, I would like to ask you a question in view of your snide aside about a
"non-linguist observer". Is it your opinion that no one is entitled to be
considered a linguist, even an amateur linguist, if he/she does not possess
a PhD in Linguistics?

As for your characterization of the Sumerian imperfective system, which is
properly called the maru: inflection *not* imperfective, just what
characteristics do you *believe* it has that qualify as ACC?

I am also puzzled by your idea that Sumerian pronouns "operate on a fully
ACC basis" since , e.g. the 1st and 2nd persons ergative g[~]a[2].e and za.e
contrast with 1st and 2nd persons absolutive g[~]a[2] and za in the same way
nouns show an ergative in -e and an absolutive in -0. Perhaps you could
explain your ideas in greater detail.