5,486
edits
Peshpeg: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
→Case and Number
| Line 310: | Line 310: | ||
}} | }} | ||
The split ergativity of the language can appear in the same clause. In the following example, ''torzha'', a Class II noun, requires ergative marking to indicate it is serving as the agent, whilst the argument ''Kodzorin'', a Class I noun, requires the accusative marker ''-jor'' to indicate its role as the patient of the sentence: | The split ergativity of the language can appear in the same clause. This situation arises among Class I and Class II arguments functioning as core arguments, demonstrated in the next two examples: | ||
1. Marked Agent + Marked Patient (Class II Ergative + Class I Accusative): | |||
{{Gloss | |||
|phrase = Torzhadu Kodzorinjor gumbiri jorlu. | |||
| IPA = | |||
| morphemes = torzha-du kodzorin-jor gumbiri jorlu. | |||
| gloss = girl.CL2.S-ERG hammer_PN.CL1.S-ACC AUX.CL2.S.PST hit | |||
| translation = The girl struck Kodzorin. | |||
}} | |||
2. Unmarked Agent + Unmarked Patient (Class I Nominative + Class II Absolutive): | |||
{{Gloss | |||
|phrase = Torzhadu Kodzorinjor gumbiri jorlu. | |||
| IPA = | |||
| morphemes = kodzorin torzha gumbiri jorlu. | |||
| gloss = hammer_PN.CL1.S.NOM girl.CL2.S.ABS AUX.CL2.S.PST hit | |||
| translation = The girl struck Kodzorin. | |||
}} | |||
In the following example, ''torzha'', a Class II noun, requires ergative marking to indicate it is serving as the agent, whilst the argument ''Kodzorin'', a Class I noun, requires the accusative marker ''-jor'' to indicate its role as the patient of the sentence: | |||
{{Gloss | {{Gloss | ||