pdf-tiedostona - Kotikielen Seura

ERG. J
(marked)'
NOM. <
(unmarked)
The customary
ergative systems
^TRANSITIVE
SUBJECT
INTRANS. SUBJECT
(agentive)
INTRANSITIVE
SUBJECT
(non-agentive)
OBJECT
(non-agentive)
Finnish
TRANSITIVE
SUBJECT
INTRANS. SUBJECT
(agentive)
INTRANS. SUBJECT
(non-agentive,
non-existential)
INTRANS SUBJECT
(non-agentive, existential)
: OBJECT
(non-agentive)
TERHO ITKONEN
NOM.
(unmarked)
OBJECT
> CASE:
PART IT./
ACC.
(marked)
The distribution of the subject and object cases in customary ergative systems and
in Finnish. The size of the boxes roughly reflects the text frequencies; the shadowed
areas indicate the marked cases (see 1.4.2). The thick horizontal line separates agentive
use of the cases concerned (and the non-agentive use of a transitive subject, cf. 1.5.1)
from the non-agentive use. It can be seen that the border line does not coincide with
that of ergative and nominative nor (in Finnish) with that of nominative and partitive/
accusative: the former remains above the line, the latter beneath it (cf. 1.4.3). The
matter stands differently in »ideal» ergative systems, which have an ergative : nominative
opposition of pronominal subjects and objects in Dakota and Batsbian, and
a genitive : partitive/accusative opposition in certain infinitival and participial clauses
in Finnish. In these instances the border line of the case opposition coincides exactly
with that of agentivity and non-agentivity (cf. 1.5.1—3).
genitive ending. In these instances the
case of the subject has assumed some of
the area from the old casus rectus, the
common case of the subject and object
which was semantically unmarked and
thus usually endingless. This provides
us with an understanding of the fact that
the ergative has an ending and the
»nominative» has no ending in most
ergative systems. In Proto-Finnic as well
the change took place in such a manner
that a case with an ending carved out
its own area, the members of which could
previosly have no ending. The innovation
was, nevertheless, of that rare type that
it took place in respect to the object and
the subject of an intransitive sentence:
for their expression a case with an ending,
the partitive, intruded in and
assumed some of the functions previously
occupied by the accusative and the
nominative. Thus a transitive subject (as
well as some intransitive ones) remained
in the old case with no ending — the
nominative.
2.5.1. As stated, in necessive infinitival
clauses and partially also in permissive
infinitival clauses and referential participial
clauses another, more sensitive
system is common in Finnish: in the
genitive — the case typical of a transitive
construction — there is only an agentive
subject in the case of intransitive constructions.
On the other hand the nonagentive
subject of an intransitive construction
is in the case of the object
whether the construction is existential or
not. The history of referative participial
clauses (which are largely based on
analogy with necessive and permissive
63