[YG Conlang Archives] > [Latejami group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Geoff Hacker <geoff.hacker@hidden.email> wrote: > > I'm no expert, but the only thing to distinguish Ladekwa from a > straightforwardly ergative language to me is its use of the focus > case as well. > I don't think that the distinction between accusative and ergative languages really applies to Ladekwa, because Ladekwa doesn't mark its core roles. In an accusative language, the subject is always marked nominative and the object is always marked accusative, regardless of the core role or its semantics. In an ergative language, core roles are typically marked for agent/agent-patient and patient/focus. [This is GENERALLY true. It is more correct to say that ergative marking is applied to the subject of a transitive verb, which is typically an agent or agent-patient, while absolutive marking is applied to the object of a transitive verb or the subject of an intransitive verb, which is typically a patient or a focus. Note that I am using the Ladekwa definitions for agent, agent-patient, patient, and focus.] However, if you consider the POSITION of an argument as equivalent to a case marker, then Ladekwa is an accusative language, since the subject always precedes the object. The fact that Ladekwa clearly indicates each core semantic role as agent, agent-patient, patient, or focus (without explicit marking) has nothing to do with ergativity. Regards, Rick Morneau http://www.eskimo.com/~ram