accusative and ergative languages

[Ralf-Stefan Georg]

>[PR interjects]
>Ralf-Stefan, ease up. Do I have to put in a 'funny-face' whenever I attempt
>to say something funny?

OK, eased up. I certainly overreacted. The Hun knows no fun ...

>[PR]
>All good points. I am wondering how you would react to the proposition that
>'passive' in ACC languages fulfills a roughly analogous role to 'splits' in
>predominantly ERG languages? 'Splitting', AFAICS, seems to be a method of
>fine-tuning the indication of directness (and intentionality) of the
>agentivity, and I am wondering if other mechanisms in ACC languages are not
>really functionally if not formally equivalent.

This is worth some thought. Nevertheless, passive is a techique I can
deliberately (within certain boundaries of course) employ to do something
with it, where this is possible (namely to downplay the agent), whereas the
splits in predominantly ERG languages are grammaticaly hard-wired and
compulsory. E.g. it is "wrong" in Georgian to use the ERG construction in
the present tense. Antipassives, in languages that do have them, are more
"equivalent" to passives there (they also "downplay", in this case the
patient), hence the name.

St.G.

Stefan Georg
Heerstrasse 7
D-53111 Bonn
FRG
+49-228-69-13-32