Print

Print


Until the many folk more knowledgeable than me chime in, I'm moved to
vaguely recall, without any auxiliary googling to check my recollection,
that Scenario B has actually happened in some Indo-Aryan lang - not quite
that alignment is driven by aktionsart, but rather that ergativity
coincides with perfective aspect, for the reasons given in Scenario B.
Hopefully someone will reply with the correct story on this. Soz if my
memory is totally garbled...
 On 12 Feb 2014 10:30, "PETER BLEACKLEY" <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> I've been thinking about a the possibility of a split subject system where
> the choice between Nom/Acc and Erg/Abs was made by the telicity of the
> verb. The question is, which way round should it go? I can think of
> arguments for both choices.
>
> Argument A
> Animate agents are more likely to be the agents of telic verbs, inanimate
> agents are more likely to be the agents of atelic verbs. Since agency is
> more marked on inanimates than animates, atelic verbs should take Erg/Abs,
> and telic verbs should take Nom/Acc.
>
> Argument B
> The result of a telic verb is important, so that makes the patient more
> salient, meaning it should be the unmarked argument with a telic verb, and
> the agent should be marked. Therefore, telic verbs should be Erg/Abs,
> atelic verbs should be Nom/Acc.
>
> Does anyone have any opinions on which of these arguments holds more
> water, or have any examples of natlangs that do something similar? I know
> that Austronesian languages have (to simplify things a lot) a voice system
> that switches the alignment between Erg/Abs and Nom/Acc. Does that involve
> telicity at all?
>
> Pete
>