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). Ed 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".