From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Mon Feb 16 07:55:46 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 16 Feb 2009 07:55:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LZ5ow-00037f-8E for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2009 07:55:46 -0800 Received: from mail-qy0-f20.google.com ([209.85.221.20]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LZ5og-000370-J1 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2009 07:55:46 -0800 Received: by qyk13 with SMTP id 13so4111535qyk.10 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2009 07:55:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=E8ck7kIANsT64YYm695fGBaisGdMWWEgIjfBArqEoLM=; b=w3QD5VFoO537tRW2blqCyTfihH54q+PTq7H4GbogcnItH2QmZvHHH2US+TVF0RVPi5 z14ozvgq1gKNFmuPqypuDikmYZGOPU3zD7JXl6lBExYAY9B9Ejhu03A4PRfCSEPEL6yx soJeSmguNsbpnCadpgFoJWAKQMtVNSPWs3Zy0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=qvxqQJ81Il3cAnU7JQEMvNjqTv2giowhfW+SgBluvMayUdIPiMBkM17KE0kp18ZXIg HEFxNIS/AyYiRyFHsTSvvQpLl1uHYLhYKw2iy23H3b7UAStlWcsWDxa+Tijn9tIuqHBM 6rzYn1iVRxLHS5DrGX6Wq24T+sLWyNmwPDFp0= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.96.132 with SMTP id h4mr1269863qcn.65.1234799711920; Mon, 16 Feb 2009 07:55:11 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <4de8c3930902160230x66606aaaxb94469b52675addc@mail.gmail.com> <4de8c3930902160552o4fb16ad9pc70ae12ebc25b153@mail.gmail.com> <200902160934.15048.phma@phma.optus.nu> Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 12:55:11 -0300 Message-ID: <925d17560902160755t1de0ee3bk98bdb6ce3bda5f3@mail.gmail.com> Subject: [lojban] Re: nominative-accusative & ergative-absolutive From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= To: lojban-list@lojban.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 15324 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 11:56 AM, Adam Raizen wrote: > > Formally, it is a bit weird, but I think that the actual cognitive > structures that speakers of Lojban use are the same as those used by > speakers of accusative languages (and that would be the case even if a > monolingual native speaker of an ergative language learned Lojban fluently.) I tend to agree. If Lojban had lots more gismu pairs like citka/cidja, tirna/savru, bacru/voksa, and assuming those pairs were more or less identical in meaning except for the argument order (which is probably not really the case now), then it could be argued that it was neutral with respect to the accusative/ergative divide. A speaker with accusative tendencies would go with "lo smacu cu ca'o citka lo cirla", and a speaker with ergative tendencies would say "lo cirla cu ca'o cidja lo mlatu", and they would both mean exactly the same thing. We do have such pairs for all predicates if we count viska/selviska, catra/selcatra, and so on, but the ergative-like one is marked, so there is a bias towards the accusative alignment. mu'o mi'e xorxes To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.