I was with you up till here.  I don't think 'become' would naturally be
treated any differently than 'be.'

I still find it weird to use erg/abs for anything where there isn't a
distinct heirarchy of agency/patiency (Someone is doing something to
someone else).  I don't see there being an agency/patiency heirarchy in
'become' any more than 'be' (or for that matter 'seem' or 'remain' or any
such linking verb).


On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Nik Taylor wrote:

> Or, maybe in Patrick's language, the verb meaning "be" originally meant
> something like "become", which would then be more sensible to use
> ergative and absolutive, and it could've kept the cases, even after it
> came to mean "be".