Re: understanding ergativity

Joachim Pense wrote:
>
> Having read some elementary descriptions of what an ergative language is, I
> try the following gedankenexperiment.
>
> Take Latin, as it is, but apply one minor change:
> For transitive sentences, make the passive the unmarked form, and active the
> marked one, that is, assume that people prefer to say
>
> (A) frater sorore laudatur
>
> rather than
>
> (B) soror fratrem laudat
>
> Also, call the active "antipassive", and the ablative of "sorore" an
> "ablativus ergativus", and voila - you got an ergative language.
>
> Now I read in Trask's book on historical linguistics that something is wrong
> with this view of ergativity, because in real ergative languages the verb
> forms are "demonstrably" not passives.
>
> Any comments?

If he doesn't "demonstrate" it there, you could look at the various
monographs called *Ergativity* (there's one by R. M. W. Dixon), or
edited volumes on the topic, or indeed his own *History of Basque* (I
did once see a copy).
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@xxxxxxx
.

Relevant Pages

  • understanding ergativity
    ... Having read some elementary descriptions of what an ergative language is, ... Take Latin, as it is, but apply one minor change: ... forms are "demonstrably" not passives. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: understanding ergativity
    ... > Joachim Pense wrote: ... >> Having read some elementary descriptions of what an ergative language is, ... >> frater sorore laudatur ... > passive-like morphology. ...
    (sci.lang)
Loading