Editor for this issue: <>
As Jonathan Bobaljik rightly observes, ergative languages which allow only absolutive arguments in non-finite clauses (such as, apparently, Eskimo-Aleut) are not a problem for traditional GB theory, at least given certain assumptions about absolutive and ergative case (specifically, that ergative case, but not absolutive case, is assigned VP-externally). I apologize for not having pointed out that Lezgian shows ergative/absolutive (or ergative/nominative) case marking and that the Lezgian "nominative" is an absolutive case (in fact, I call it Absolutive case in my forthcoming grammar). The reason for this omission is that it doesn't matter (and here comes the surprise for Jonathan): Lezgian non-finite clauses show the same case-marking as finite clauses, including ergative arguments. For example, (1) is just as good as (2). (1) Didedi-z gadadi ktab qacu-na k'an-zawa. mother-DAT boy(ERG) book(ABS) buy-NONFIN want-PRES 'Mother wants the boy to buy a book.' (2) Didedi-z ktab stold-a xa-na k'an-zawa. mother-DAT book(ABS) table-INESS be-NONFIN want-PRES 'Mother wants the book to be on the table.' Thus, Lezgian behaves just like Dravidian, and the accusative vs. ergative distinction is irrelevant here. It seems that the Lezgian facts cannot be simply explained away and the problem for GB remains. Martin Haspelmath, Free University of BerlinMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue