#ergative

verto -are -avi -atum, i/to turn is a transitive verb, so it needs an object.

however, like in english, you dont always turn something, sometimes you just turn. the way latin expresses that is

Argus ad cenam se vertit, Argus turns towards the food, but more literally Argus turns himself towards the food.

because when you turn around, you are both doing the action, and experiencing the result of the action. which is what the sole argument of an intransitive verb does.

now, in latin, this is just to account for the languages accusative alignment, but maybe in a clong descendant of it (or in your own clong) that has more ambitransitive verbs,

Argus sē vertit becomes Argussē vertit becomes Argissē creating an ergative case

puer (nom) → puessē (erg)

puerī (nom) → puerīsse (erg)

penna (nom) → pennasē (erg)

pennae (nom) → pennaesē (erg)

flūmen (nom) → flumense

flūminēs (nom) → flūminēsse (erg)

hoc (nom) → hossē (erg)

So far: lesson 1, lesson 2, lesson 3, lesson 4, lesson 5, lesson 6, lesson 7, lesson 8, lesson 9, lesson 10, lesson 11 and Greenlandic stress

Learn this course’s words with this memrise course.

Text lessons by @tulunnguaq: All his posts.

What you will learn: weak geminating stems #1, transitive verbs #1 

Weak geminating stems #1

In lesson 7, I first introduced you to weak and strong nouns. In lesson 9, we spoke about slightly irregular weak nouns and in lesson 10, we dealt with possessive nouns. But many weak nouns (some strong nouns, too, though) also have another feature, they geminate the last consonant of the stem when certain endings are applied to it. Gemination is the doubling of a consonant so that it is pronounced twice as long. The tricky part here is not only to remember when gemination happens but also how the consonant changes, because a doubled consonant can change its pronunciation completely. You’ve already encountered that in lesson 3, when we spoke about verb stems and their assimilation with the ending -vu- like in sinippoq (coming from sinik+vu+q, where /k+v/ assimilate to /vv/ but I told you there that /vv/ cannot exist as a geminated consonant but changes in verbal paradigms to /pp/ (thus, sinippoq) and in nominal paradigms to /ff/ (for example iga* + -’vik becomes igaffik - kitchen)

Let’s get started with easy predictable stuff: 1. All weak nouns ending in -k geminate. (Remember, most nouns ending in -k are strong, though.) 2. All nouns ending in -gaq, -raq, -utaq and -seq geminate. 3. All weak nouns ending in -q and -k, lose this consonant everywhere except for the absolutive singular.  4. Gemination can only occur when the last consonant of the stem (i. e. before the then vanished -q and -k) is a single consonant (<ng> counts as a single consonant). 5. Gemination cannot occur when the ending starts with a vowel or with /r/.

Here is a little illustration of the above rules:

1. ujamik - pearl necklace, ends in /-k/, thus, always geminates when the ending starts with a consonant other than /r/. > ujammip - the necklace’s, but ujamika - his/her necklace 2. aalisagaq - fish > aalisakkap - the fish’s; meeraq - child > meeqqap - the child’s; ilaqutaq - family member > ilaquttap - the family member’s; taseq - lake > tatsip - the lake’s (see below for the strange consonant changes) 3+4. qimmeq - dog > qimmit - dogs; it has a double consonant, thus, cannot be geminated. Also, it loses its final /q/ except for the absolutive singular. isigak - foot, however, loses its /k/, too, but geminates the single /g/ to /kk/ > isikkat - feet. 5. meeraq - child > meeqqat - children, but meeraa - his/her child (ending is -a), meerarsi - your (Pl.) child (ending is -rsi).

These are absolute rules, that apply (almost) always. There are, however, a lot of rules with only high probability about their outcome, whilst having many exceptions, though.

Generally, many stems that have a single -g-, -j-, -l-, -m-, -n-, -ng-, -q-, -r-, -s-, -t- in their last syllable geminate. Unfortunately, one has to learn exceptions to these by heart, but the information on this can be found in most dictionaries. In the following, you will find a list of examples beginning with the consonants that geminate predictably from the single form, e.g. /t/, to the doubled form, /tt/. The list follows the classical layout of naming the Absolutive Singular as the basic form, and then giving the Ergative Singular, the Ergative/Absolutive Plural and the Instrumental Singular (s. lesson 7).

/m/ becomes /mm/ ameq (skin) > ammip, ammit, ammimik imaq (sea) > immap, immat, immamik isuma (meaning) > isummap, isummat, isummamik

/n/ becomes /nn/ kiinaq (face) > kiinnap, kiinnat, kiinnamik nanoq (polar bear) > nannup, nannut, nannumik

/ng/ becomes /nng/ qingaq (nose) > qinngap, qinngat, qinngamik sapangaq (pearl) > sapanngap, sapanngat, sapanngamik

/q/ becomes /qq/ niaqoq (head) > niaqqup, niaqqut, niaqqumik oqaq (tongue) > oqqap, oqqat, oqqamik

/t/ becomes /tt/ avataq (hunting float) > avattap, avattat, avattamik iperaataq (whip) > iperaattap, iperaattat, iperaattamik

/l/ becomes /ll/ (keep in mind, /ll/ is pronounced [ɬɬ]) uiloq (common mussel) > uillup, uillut, uillumik ukaleq (arctic hare) > ukallip, ukallit, ukallimik kalaaleq (Greenlander) > kalaallip, kalaallit, kalaallimik (That is why the Equative Singular “as a Greenlander” used for the language name has gemination “Kalaallisut”)

Some consonants change, however, when they are geminated. (This is not the rule for all cases, consonant doublings can behave differently depending on the context, in this case it is declension.)

/g/ becomes /kk/ iigaq (wall): *iigga- ~ iikka- > iikkap, iikkat, iikkamik isigak (foot): *isigga- ~ isikka- > isikkap, isikkat, isikkamik putugoq (big toe): *putuggu- ~ putukku- > putukkup, putukkut, putukkumik

/r/ becomes /qq/ amaroq (wolf): *amarru- ~ amaqqu- > amaqqup, amaqqut, amaqqumik siuteroq (snail): *siuterru- ~ siuteqqu- > siuteqqup, siuteqqut, siuteqqumik ujarak (stone): *ujarra- ~ ujaqqa- > ujaqqap, ujaqqat, ujaqqamik

/s/ becomes /ts/ qarasak (brain): *qarassa- ~ qaratsa- > qaratsap, qaratsat, qaratsamik

/j/ becomes /ss/ or /ts/ kanajoq (sea scorpion): *kanajju- ~ kanassu- > kanassup, kanassut, kanassumik nujaq (head hair): *nujja- ~ nutsa- > nutsap, nutsat, nutsamik tarajoq (salt): *tarajju- ~ taratsu- > taratsup, taratsut, taratsumik (Actually, there is no double /j/, so it becomes /tt/ or /kk/, in our case it is /tt/ which is in a second change turning into /ss/ or /ts/. Which of both cannot be predicted.)

Some nouns can be declined differently, sometimes they are geminating, sometimes not, some can be either weak or strong. It depends on the speaker, personal preference, the dialect and the age of the speaker. One example is taleq (see above) which can also be declined as the following: taleq (arm) > talerup, talerit, talermik

In the next lesson, we will deal with consonants that aren’t represented orthographically, but which become visible when they are geminated.

Transitive verbs #1

We have already learned a fair bit about verbs in Greenlandic. In lesson 3, you’ve encountered attributive verbs, the three kinds of verb stems and their personal endings, which are the same for intransitive verbs in general. In lesson 4, you learned how to pose questions by changing the endings. And in lesson 7, you’ve already built sentences with the antipassive structure that come close to a transitive meaning. The verb conjugation, however, was the same intransitive building as you learned in lesson 3. In lesson 10, we took an excursion to the similarities between the possessive endings and the transitive verb endings when the object is the third person singular or plural. 

Transitivity is when the meaning of a verb requires two participants: a subject and an object. The verb “to sleep” is intransitive as it only requires the one participant that sleeps: Sinippoq - S/he sleeps. You cannot sleep someone: *Sinippaa. - *S/he sleeps him/her. Other verbs, however, like “to kill” cannot be expressed without mentioning two participants, the one who kills (the subject, agent) and that who/what is killed (the object). “to kill” means “toqup-” and the sentence “S/he kills him/her.” would be: Toquppaa. That is the ending that you have already seen in lesson 10. Without context, the intransitive form *Toquppoq. - *S/he kills. wouldn’t make much sense. 

In general, Greenlandic verbs conjugate according to person (I, you, s/he/it, 4th person), number (I vs. we, you vs. y’all, s/he/it vs. they, 4th person vs. 4th persons) and mode (four superordinate modes for main clauses: indicative, interrogative, imperative and optative; and four subordinate modes for dependent clauses: conjunctive, conditional, participative and contemporative). This may sound like a lot, but we will get to that and you have already mastered most of the intransitive indicative and interrogative modes. Here is how a chart of mode endings would look like (from the Grønlandsk grammatik of Flemming A.J. Nielsen 2014)

You already know the indicative.intransitive ending +vu- from sentences like “angivugut - we are big”, the negated form (benægtet form) “anginngilagut - we are not big” and the interrogative forms “angivugut? - are we big?”, “angivisi? - are you guys big?” and “angippat? - are they big?” (from the intermediate form angivvat > angippat), plus their negated forms.

How to build the transitive forms

What we will learn today are the endings for the indicative transitive mode, of which the basic ending is +va-. 

As you’ve seen above, transitive verbs do not only agree with the subject (”S/he sleeps”.) but also with the object of the verb, which is unknown to English. There are two ways to explain which ending comes after +va- for which person constellation. The short story will regard the personal endings as monomorphemic for the sake of less confusion. So, when I’d say “I answer you.” the sentence would be “Akivakkit.” (akivoq means “S/he answers” and keep in mind that in most dictionaries verb entries are given with the 3. person singular by default, for intransitive verbs the verbal ending of an entry would be +voq and for transitive verbs it would be +vaa s/he-->him/her) The mode ending is +va-, as said above, and the ending that denotes that the verb’s meaning has I as the subject and you as the object (1Sg--X-->2Sg) is -kkit, so you add +vakkit to the verb stem aki- making akivakkit - I answer you. So, for every possible personal constellation, one ending would have to be learned, that would be 28 in total.

The long story would have to do with ergativity in Greenlandic, the agent of the verb takes the Ergative case and the object takes the Absolutive case. Ergativity means that the subject of an intransitive verb has the same case marker as the object of a transitive verb (unlike English, *Him sleeps vs. I see him), in this case, the object would have the markers you’ve already encountered in lesson 3. In fact, the endings for the personal constellations (I do XXX to you.) consist of two morphemes that underly so many extra rules that their true character is very often obscure. I will only illustrate this with the ending -kkit (I --> you, see above) which is built according to the following rules:

The first part after the mode ending +va- of those endings consists of the agent of the verb’s meaning in the Relative case, which would be -ma- in this case. When it is the subject of a transitive verb it gets reduced to -m-. In the next step, we take the second person singular in the absolutive case as the object ending, which would be -tit, and put it after the subject ending, but whenever the subject before it is either the first person singular or plural it becomes -git. This would leave us which: (+va)-m+git. As you may know by now, the consonants would assimilate to the last consonant, which would lead us to (+va)-ggit, but a double /gg/ becomes /kk/ when it is used with inflection (see gemination above), which eventually, makes the whole ending (+va)-kkit. 

But as this is way too long for the basics in Greenlandic transitivity, it should suffice to learn the endings as one morpheme as an intermediate step, which would leave you with 28 endings for all the possible constellations within the indicative mode, instead of 47+ independent endings, that undergo more than 30 rules on how they change forms when they are combined depending on what comes before or after them.

In lesson 10, you’ve already learned some possessive endings, which are also used for whenever a person is doing a verb action to a third person singular or plural. In layman’s term, one can only possess grammatically third person(s). The only catch here: the endings are simpler and always the same (that’s a good catch, YAY). 

Here is how the ending +va- changes according to the verb stem (s. lesson 3):  Vowel stem: aki- +va- > akiva- (to answer) C-Stem: allap- +va- > allappa- (to write sth.) R-Stem: atuar- +va- > atuarpa- (to read sth)

Object is the third person singular (3.Sg.) - thus: him, her, it 1.Sg. +ra, I > akivara > I answer him. 2.Sg. +t > You > allappat > You write it. 3.Sg. +a > S/he > atuarpaa > S/he reads it. 1.Pl. +rput > We > allapparput > We write it. 2.Pl. +rsi > Y’all > akivarsi > Y’all answer him. 3.Pl. +at > They > atuarpaat > They read it.

Object is the third person plural (3.Pl.) - thus: them 1.Sg. +kka, I > akivakka > I answer them. 2.Sg. +tit > You > allappatit > You write them. 3.Sg. +i > S/he > atuarpai > S/he reads them. 1.Pl. +vut > We > allappavut > We write them. 2.Pl. +si > Y’all > akivasi > Y’all answer them. 3.Pl. +it > They > atuarpaat > They read them. (A!-rule)  (As you see, there is no distinction between singular or plural third person object because the /i/ from the plural ending is assimilated to the preceding /a/.)

As mentioned in lesson 10, the similarity between the possessive endings and the endings to mark the object as a third person comes from a structure where the verb’s passive participle was, in fact, possessed: qimmeq > qimmera - my dog vs. akivara - lit. my answered thing (is) he > I answer him. That is the reason why, as I mentioned in the short story of the long explanation above, these endings are really monomorphemic, they only mark the possessor, in this case the subject/agent of the sentence. 

Now, that we covered all constellations where any person does the verb’s action against/to a third person (sg. or pl.), I will show you what endings are used for the remaining constellations, e.g. you kiss me. Keep in mind, though, that reciprocal constellations like I--XXX-->myself/us are another cake that we will deal with later, they cannot be built this way.

That leaves us with the following constellations:

I-->you +kkit > akivakkit > I answer you. I-->y’all +ssi > akivassi > I answer y’all.

We-->you +tsigit > akivatsigit > We answer you. We-->y’all +ssi > akivassi > We answer y’all.

You-->me +rma > akivarma > You answer me. You-->us +tsigut > akivatsigut > You answer us. Y’all-->me +ssinga > akivassinga > Y’all answer me. Y’all-->us +tsigut > akivatsigut > Y’all answer us.

S/he-->me +anga > akivaanga > S/he answers me. S/he-->you +aatit > akivaatit > S/he answers you. ** S/he-->us +atigut > akivaatigut > S/he answers us. S/he-->y’all +asi > akivaasi > S/he answers y’all.

They-->me +anga > akivaanga > They answer me. They-->you +atsit > akivaatsit > They answer you. ** They-->us +atigut > akivaatigut > They answer us. They-->y’all +asi > akivaasi > They answer y’all. ** These are the only endings in these last two paradigms where you can distinguish the number of the subject in the 3. person.

Whilst in English, almost the whole verbal paradigm has the same form, except for the third person singular (I/you/we/they sleep vs. S/he sleeps), there are fewer forms in Greenlandic that are ambiguous: Akivaat. - They answer him or them. Akivassi. - I or we answer y’all. Akivatsigut. - You or Y’all answer us. Akivaanga. - S/he or they answer me. Akivaatigut. - S/he or they answer us. Akivaasi. - S/he or they answer y’all. Allappat - You write it. or They write? (see lesson 4 for questions) In these cases, context is needed to make things clear, just as context is needed to know whether in the sentence “I see you.” means one or more persons that I see.

To come back the long story from above, can you spot the intransitive endings from lesson 3 at the end of the endings above?

Right: Akivassi has -si as in intransitive Angivusi - Y’all are big. Akivassinga has -nga as in intransitive Angivunga - I am big. Akivatsigut has -gut as in intransitive Angivugut - We are big. Akivaatit has -tit as in intransitive Angivutit - You are big.

As mentioned above, ergativity means to have the same case marker for the subject of an intransitive sentence Angivunga (I am big) and for the object of a transitive sentence Akivaanga (S/he answers me). This pattern can be seen here and is pretty different from English. We will deal with this pattern in the next lessons in more detail.

One last thing is, that Greenlandic is considered a pro-drop language, that means, that personal pronouns don’t have to be used because the verbal endings already make it very clear which persons are involved. Spanish, for example is also a pro-drop language, so, Te amo - I love you only expresses the object as a personal pronoun, not the subject, because the -o ending at the verb makes it clear enough that it is the first person singular. Greenlandic differs from this insofar as the object is also encoded in the verbal ending, so that also the object pronoun can be left out: Asavakkit - I love you.

adj.Of or relating to a language, such as Georgian, in which the subject of an intransitive verb and the object of a transitive verb are expressed by one grammatical case, and the subject of a transitive verb is expressed by another.

adj.Of or relating to the grammatical case of the subject of a transitive verb in such a language.

Morphosyntactic alignments other than nominative-accusative

Nominative-accusative alignment is the most commons cross-linguistically.

True Ergative-absolutive languages are rare, most of them are called Split-Ergative languages, because the ergative case only occurs in some contexts, while having a nominative-accusative syntax for all other contexts.

I analyse Active-Stative languages as a subtype of split ergativity, so many languages considered to be Active-Stative, are actually represented here as Split Ergativity.

The tripartite alignment is one of the rarest, it treats each argument of a transitive verb diferently from the argument of an intransitive verb. It occurs in the Vakh dialect of Khanty-Mansi, Nez Percé, Kala Laga Yaw and a few others.

An even rarer type, the transtive alignment, which I prefer to call Transitive-Intransitive alignment, is not included here because there’s probably only one language that has it.

The nominative-absolutive (also called marked nominative) occurs in some languages.

I know I haven't written for a while. I'm still not over my last conlang (that attempt at a topic-prominent conlang didn't work out), I still go back to my notes and write some random sentences, but it's not the same anymore.

I've started working on an ergative-absolutive conlang, though. It's been almost a month already and I couldn't be happier. I think I like this conlang. Maybe this is the one?

Yes, I know it's got tones, but I can bear with it. It's not like those langs with crazy tone combinations, this one's only got two tones, and that's only on roots. Its tone-free morphemes make it easy to deal with its highs and lows.