accusative and ergative languages

[Stefan Georg]

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

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

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

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

Beats me, taedet me, menja ozhidajut ...

>And a sentence like:

>. . . eg{~}er-a-ni u{3} dam dumu-ni dumu Ba.Ba.g{~]u{10}-ke{4}-ne
>ba-ne-sum-ma

>must be rendered in English by the passive:

>. . . that his estate and his wife and children were given to the sons of
>Babag{u}.

Having to be rendered by the passive in English is not the same thing as
"being passive in  nature".

St.