Unknown term for Ergative Languages

If you're new to these arts, this is the place to ask "stupid" questions and get directions!
Oil In My Lamp
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 21
Joined: 09 Jul 2019 19:15
Location: Canada

Re: Unknown term for Ergative Languages

Post by Oil In My Lamp »

Salmoneus wrote:
28 Mar 2020 01:19
Close, but not quite. If the verb is genuinely intransitive - rather than merely univalent - then it cannot have a patient.

In true 'ergative-absolutive' languages, the subject of an intransitive is always treated the same way, regardless of its semantics.
So, does that mean "I ate" is univalent rather than truely intransitive?
I ate - univalent
I slept - intransitive

And so is "I" in "I ate" ergative? Or it could be?
Salmoneus wrote:
28 Mar 2020 01:19
However, there are forms of "split ergativity" - most typically the "active" alignments found in some native american languages - where patient-like subjects and agent-like subjects are indeed treated differently (basically, S=A (nom-acc) when S is semantically sufficiently agentlike, but S=O (erg-abs) when S is semantically sufficiently patientlike).
That sounds like an easy way to do it, but maybe it would get very confusing after a while depending on social expectations in correlation to how lax the grammar rules are.
Give me oil in my lamp, I pray.

Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1959
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

Re: Unknown term for Ergative Languages

Post by Salmoneus »

Oil In My Lamp wrote:
28 Mar 2020 16:01
Close, but not quite. If the verb is genuinely intransitive - rather than merely univalent - then it cannot have a patient.

In true 'ergative-absolutive' languages, the subject of an intransitive is always treated the same way, regardless of its semantics.
So, does that mean "I ate" is univalent rather than truely intransitive?
I ate - univalent
I slept - intransitive
We shouldn't get too hung up on terminology, because it isn't set in stone. But yes, I would say that for most purposes "I ate" is a transitive but univalent verb, which therefore has an implied but unstated semantic patient (the thing you ate).

However, it's more debateable whether this is always the case. You could argue that in an exchange like "do you want lunch?" - "no thanks, I already ate", the verb "to eat" is acting as a true intransitive, with a meaning like "I partook of a meal". Our verb "to dine" is (arguably) truly intransitive in this way, and cannot be transitive). In particular, some might say that if someone "ate at the Ritz", they didn't even necessarily eat anything at all (maybe they just had water, but the person they were with ate) - that's probably true of 'dine', but maybe not of 'ate'. Semantics are always wobbly.

But yes, you seem to grasp the distinction I'm making. However, note that BOTH verbs there are syntactically univalent, even though the first is semantically transitive.

And so is "I" in "I ate" ergative? Or it could be?
Well, English doesn't have an ergative.

In an ergative-absolutive language, could you have a sentence like "I ate", with "I" in the ergative case? Yes. But I'm guessing it's not that common.

There's two ways a language can treat a sentence like "I ate". One is as a bivalent verb with a non-overt patient. In an erg-abs language, the patient is the primary argument of a transitive, so it would be very strange to simply drop it like that - it would be like saying "ate bread" in English, with no subject. Languages usually only allow this when the missing argument is present close by (eg in an adjacent clause), to the extent that a linguist would probably say it isn't missing. Some languages are 'null subject' languages, which can drop the subject - but this is treated as underlyingly having an invisible pronoun as the subject, following the usual rules to determine what the pronoun refers to, and it also usually only happens when the verb agrees with properties of this subject, so the subject isn't really missing at all. Some languages also have situations where a null subject really is null, but these are usually restricted to a very small number of verbs, such as weather verbs (where English has "it is raining", some languages just say "is raining").

I would expect something similar with patients in ergative languages, though not necessarily (as most ergative languages are only partly ergative - so I assume some (many?) act like nom-acc languages with regard to dropping patients?)

IF an erg-abs language allows patient-dropping in this way, then "I" would indeed be in the ergative there.

The other way, however, to treat "I ate" is as a univalent verb with no patient at all (and just ignore the fact that, semantically, there COULD be a patient). This could be done lexically - the way that English has both univalent/bivalent "I ate (the bread)" and strictly univalent "I dined". It could also be done inflectionall, the way that English has bivalent "I ate the bread" and univalent "the bread was eaten". If a language does this, then no, "I" would not be in the ergative, it would be in the absolutive, because it's now the subject of an intransitive verb.

So:
I-ERG ate bread-ABS
but
I-ABS dined

An inflexional process that takes transitive verbs and yields intransitive verbs by removing the patient is called an "antipassive voice".

And of course, for extra fun, an antipassive could be zero-derived, with the valency determined only from word order, case marking and so forth.

Salmoneus wrote:
28 Mar 2020 01:19
However, there are forms of "split ergativity" - most typically the "active" alignments found in some native american languages - where patient-like subjects and agent-like subjects are indeed treated differently (basically, S=A (nom-acc) when S is semantically sufficiently agentlike, but S=O (erg-abs) when S is semantically sufficiently patientlike).
That sounds like an easy way to do it, but maybe it would get very confusing after a while depending on social expectations in correlation to how lax the grammar rules are.
Grammar rules are never lax, although they may vary with dialect.

Split ergativity is no more confusing than any other alignment. It can be divided into two types: fluid-S, in which the marking of the sole argument of univalent verbs depends upon the actual circumstances of the event; and split-S, in which the marking of the argument is fixed for each verb.




EDIT: I will say, though, that I'm not a linguist, so I'm welcome to being corrected by those that know what they're talking about. However, I think the above is fairly true, on the basis of everything I've read over the years.

User avatar
Ser
sinic
sinic
Posts: 264
Joined: 30 Jun 2012 06:13
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia / Colombie Britannique, Canada

Re: Unknown term for Ergative Languages

Post by Ser »

I think it'd be useful to give the answer to those examples.

I ate. - univalent, transitive or intransitive ("semantics is wobbly")
I slept. - univalent, intransitive
I ate salad. - bivalent, transitive

(In Mandarin and Standard Arabic, it's very common to say "I slept a good sleep", as an example of "to sleep" as a bivalent. Well, in English you can also say "I slept a good sleep", but it's not exactly common... Also, in Spanish, univalent intransitive dormir 'to sleep' can create the bivalent transitive verb dormir with zero-derivation, which specifically bears the causative meaning 'to put [a pet] to sleep' (as in, have a vet end a dog's or some other animal's life).)
hīc sunt linguificēs. hēr bēoþ tungemakeras.

Oil In My Lamp
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 21
Joined: 09 Jul 2019 19:15
Location: Canada

Re: Unknown term for Ergative Languages

Post by Oil In My Lamp »

Thank you all for your answers. I have begun to think that I simply over complicated things in my mind. I think it would be better to simply think of ergative-absolutive being different only in alignment (I know that has already been said, but maybe now I understand it better), and many of the ambiguities that arise are very much like the ambiguities in English and other languages. It is not so complicated as I made it seem, perhaps. People probably get confused from time to time with other languages too, not just mine, haha. And just because some words in English would be confusing if put in ergative-absolutive situations, that does not mean the Erg-Abs language has to keep that ambiguity.

Thanks so much for all your help, I really had been having a hard time grasping this topic before. [:D] [:D]

EDIT: I also appreciate having all your answers here as reference!
Give me oil in my lamp, I pray.

Post Reply