accusative and ergative languages

[Richard M. Alderson III]

On 22 Jun 1999, Patrick Ryan wrote:

>I do believe that the term 'ergative language' has a real value in
>linguistic analysis --- to differentiate two basic approaches to transitive
>constructions:

(1)
>Language A:
>	Noun(A)+erg. noun(B)+abs. verb
>will be interpreted as A performs an activity on B.

(2)
>Language B:
>	Noun(A)+nom. noun(B)+acc. verb
>will be interpreted as A performs an activity on B.

(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*.

This flies in the face of reality.  Let's take an example from Latin, an easy
example of a language with accusative morphology *and* syntax:

	Amicus videt.		"The friend sees."
	Amicum videt.		"(Some unspecified one) sees the friend."
	Amicus videtur.		"The friend is seen (by an unspecified agent)."

There is nothing ungrammatical in the sentence "amicum videt".

This, of course, assumes that the verbs in question are transitive.  If they
are *intransitive*, then your fourth example is correctly labeled as ungramma-
tical, but your third is ungrammatical in the sense you assign to it; it could
only mean that B is the *subject* of the verb (whether performer of the action
or entity in the state) in a language with ergative morphology and syntax.

								Rich Alderson