Talk:Ergative case

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] Present and ongoing controversy

Far more people have heard of nominative than ergative, and it is misleading to assume that synthetic languages can be confined to, and defined by, a simple pairing of two cases (e.g., nominative and accusative) when, in fact, those families of languages tend to have many more grammatical cases than two. If you can distinguish nominative from ergative in a meaningful way, you should do so. You haven't done so yet.

Since the main article fails to cite works prior to 1980 (when the popular computer revolution basically began), I'm going to assume that the use of "ergative" and "absolutive" as terms, is, essentially, neologistic, and therefore the result of ongoing research dreamed up by the proponents of the terms, and bandied about here, in an opportunistic effort to lend it some kind of legitimacy. I'm going to add the controversial template to the main article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.177.27.3 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 22 September 2006.

I don't know what that was, but anyway the user who posted above first added and then removed the "controversial" tag. It is of course not the case that "ergative" and "absolutive" are neological. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 10:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ee suffix

Doesn't the -ee ending (escapee, divorcee) come from French? If so, how widely spread would this grammatical construction have to have become in English before it is considered an "English" construction rather than a "French" one?

Here's the entry in the American Heritage Dictionary for -ee, which includes a brief history: http://www.bartleby.com/61/61/E0046100.html I would certainly consider it to be an "English" construction, since it's commonly used (including the coining of new words using the construction) by native English speakers who don't know a word of French. Brion VIBBER

I don't like how the article defines the ergative-absolutive case system in terms of the nominative-accusative case system. Although the comparison is good, the article needs to describe the principle behind ergative-absolutive.

Would it be correct to say the following?

In the nominative-accusative system, the agent is always in the nominative case, and the patient (if there is one, separate from the agent) is in the accusative case. On the other hand, in the ergative-absolutive system, the patient is always in the ergative case, with the agent (if there is one separate from the patient) being in the absolutive case.

--hb

Similar to the case cited with "open" is this an example of ergativity? "John flunked the class" "The class flunked" In both cases the class is the subject of the verb, but in the second case the agent is missing. do I have that right? --turnip

I've removed that example of 'open', because it's misleading. It's an example of syncretism in transitivity marking of some kind, but not ergative marking. The example used was:

Another example of ergativity is the verb "open":
John opens the door.
The door opens.

Here, the verb 'open' has two different values, one transitive and one intransitive. We have a few pairs of stems that differ, like lay/lie and set/sit, bit mainly we use the same verbs in English: as in John burns the paper and The paper burns. The relationship of the verb to its nouns is different. Contrast the case where the same verb can be used with the same relationship, but transitively or intransitively: John eats the egg vs John eats. Here, eat hasn't swapped its orientation, it's just changed the number of participants. But open or burn has a different meaning.

So there are two distinct ways a transitive sentence can be related to an intransitive one:

John breaks the plate.
John slips.
The plate breaks.

Ergative marking, as usually understood in the languages that clearly have it, mark these as

John-ERG breaks the plate-ABS.
John-ABS slips.

But the third one is clearly not in the same situation as the second. Some languages (pure ergative) might mark it as 'The plate-ABS breaks', because it's subject of an intransitive. In English the verb is active voice, but other languages might use a different verb form, like middle voice (perhaps formally identical to reflexive, as in French) to detransitivize it. Some languages distinguish between unergative and unaccusative... the former is actively intransitive ('John jumps'), the latter passively intransitive ('John slips'). In an active marking language you'd say 'John-ERG jumps' but 'John-ABS slips'. So, all in all, bringing the English 'open' into this is a can of worms and it's not really the same as the straightforward marking that characterizes ergative. I think it's misleading to suggest English has ergativity in normal verb forms.

(I'm not sure what 'John flunks the class' means. Is John a teacher or a student?) Gritchka 14:12 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Flunk means "fail to manage" or something like that, afaik. So in the sentence "the class flunked", it means all the students in the class failed to complete the course (Class referring to a mass of people), while in "John flunked the class", "class" has the different meaning "course". (Hmmmm, late answer.)惑乱 分からん 16:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/r/g/Talk%7EErgative_case_e0ba.html"