Intransitive agreement Sample Clauses

Intransitive agreement. Subject Language Singular Dual Plural 1 Nau. -u- a/-¯o -u-kuk -u-kut WIn˜u. -¯o-a -u-kuk -u-kut CAY -u-nga -u-kuk -u-kut WG -u-nga -u-guk -u-gut WC -u-nga -u-guk -u-gut 2 Nau. -u-t n -u-t k -u-si WIn˜u. - -n -u-t k -u-ˇci CAY -u-t n -u-t k -u-ˇci WG -u-tit -u-tik -u-si/-se† WC -u-tin -u-tik -u-hi 3 Nau. -u-q -u-k -u-t WIn˜u. -o-k -u-k -u-t CAY -u-q -u-k -u-t WG -u-q/-o-q† -u-k -u-t WC -u-q -u-k -u-t Table 1: Subject agreement Table 1 lists the intransitive (subject) agreement suffixes. These suffixes are only found in a verbal, not in a nominal, context. I will refer to this paradigm as ‘true agreement’, because of this restriction to a verbal context. My null hypothesis will be that if Xxxxxxxx is right, we expect these morphemes to be present in the composite transitive forms as well; in any language, there is never more than one series of agreement morphemes that agree with the nominative case-marked constituent. This is a claim contra Xxxxx’x claim that “no single agreement morpheme can induce coindexing between the verb and its subject in some cases and its object in other case.” (Xxxxx, 1985, p.381): the agreement morphemes in table 1 cross-reference to subjects in intransitive clauses and antipassive transitive clauses, but, as I will show below, to objects in ergative transitive clauses. Moreover, we expect to encounter at least one series of clitics, which, contrary to the morphemes in table 1, can be found in nominal contexts. This series should cross-reference with the ergative case-marked subject of a transitive clause.