Zeppelin42

Ergative morphology

Hi. About your comment on Talk:Ergative-absolutive language, I think that you are missing some things, which I will point out below.

(1) Transitivity. This basically refers to the number of arguments/participants (that is, nouns) in a statement. This is not connected with (morphological) case marking, which tells us the syntactic function of nouns. What you identify with your example "John and I went to the store'' is case marking (at least, I think, that is what you mean). Generally, an intransitive verb only has a subject (1 argument), a transitive verb has a subject and an object (2 arguments), and a ditransitive verb has a subject and two objects (one is a direct object, one is an indirect object) (3 arguments). Thus, in English the verb sleep is intransitive since it can only take a subject as in John is sleeping, while kick is transitive since it (usually) take both a subject and an object as in John is kicking Ishwar and give is ditransitive since it can take a subject and 2 objects as in John is giving Ishwar the book. Coordinated nouns do not affect the transitivity of the verb. So, the following sentences are all transitive:

• John is kicking Noah
• John and Noah are kicking Ishwar
• John is kicking Ishwar and Noah
• John and Noah are kicking Ishwar and Samantha.

(2) Case marking. This basically identifies what noun is the subject or object. If there are two arguments in a sentence (which would mean it has a transitive verb), the listener will need to know which noun is the subject and which is the object. Thus, case marking enables the speaker to figure this information out by marking each noun with a distinct case. So, in many languages the subject is marked with one case (often called nominative) while the object is marked with a different case (often called accusative). In English the first pronoun I is marked as the subject, first person me is marked as the object.

(3) Ergativity. Ok, given our understanding of case marking defined above, we know that if we have a transitive sentence with a transitive verb and two noun arguments, then morphological case marking can be used to indicate which noun is the subject or the object. What about an intransitive sentence with an intransitive verb and only one noun argument? Here we find that different languages do different things. Assuming that the sole noun argument of an intransitive verb is required to marked with some kind of case marking, there can be at least three different ways to the mark this noun (there are more, but we wont go there):

1. the noun argument of the intransitive could be marked with the same case as the subject of the transitive sentence (nominative-accusative marking)
2. the noun argument of the intransitive could be marked with the same case as the object of the transitive sentence (ergative-absolutive marking)
3. the noun argument of the intransitive could be marked with the third case that is different from both of the noun arguments of the transitive sentence (tripartite marking)

Thus, accusative languages use the same marking for both the subject of transitive sentences and the subject of intransitive sentences while the object of transitive sentencese is marked differently.

Ergative languages use the same marking for both the object of transitive sentences and the subject of intransitive sentences while the subject of transitive sentences is marked differently.

Tripartite languages (which are less common) mark all three arguments differently.

Schematic examples could be as follows:

---

Accusative langs:

1. (1) transitive: NOUN₁-aaa VERB NOUN₂-bbb
2. (2) intransitive: NOUN₃-aaa VERB.

Both subjects NOUN₁ and NOUN₃ are marked with suffix -aaa.

---

Ergative langs:

1. (1) transitive: NOUN₁-ccc VERB NOUN₂-ddd
2. (2) intransitive: NOUN₃-ddd VERB.

Both NOUN₂ (object) and NOUN₃ (subject of intransitive) are marked with suffix -ddd.

---

Tripartite langs:

1. (1) transitive: NOUN₁-eee VERB NOUN₂-fff
2. (2) intransitive: NOUN₃-ggg VERB.

All nouns are marked with different suffixes.

Maybe this helps? – ishwar  (speak) 05:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

August 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gog and Magog may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• a people who live near a ''murky water'', traditionally identified as modern day [[Black Sea]]). He then decrees to punish those who were found to have done acts of ''Dhulm'' (i.e. injustice and

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Republic of Venice

I'm sorry but I've reverted you. Two reasons - much of what you added seems to be your own analysis and is thus original research, which we don't allow. If it is a significant view that "There is a way for both stories to be true simultaneously." then you need to add some sources and say who holds this view. The second point is that you removed sources because they are secondary. If you read WP:VERIFY and [{WP:RS]] you will see that we expect secondary sources to be the main sources used in an article. Dougweller (talk) 12:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Gary Olds

The article Gary Olds has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Wgolf (talk) 03:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)