Documentation

Linglib.Phenomena.Case.Studies.DependentCaseInventories

Dependent Case ↔ Inventory Bridge #

Connects the dependent case algorithm (assignCases) to language-specific case inventories from Fragment files. For each language, we prove that the structural cases the algorithm can assign are members of that language's validated case inventory.

Structure #

The ABS/NOM Mismatch in Split-Ergative Languages #

The dependent case algorithm assigns ABS (CaseVal.abs) as the unmarked case in ergative alignment. However, Hindi and Georgian realize this function morphologically as NOM (no overt marker), not as a distinct ABS form. Their inventories contain ERG (the dependent case) but not ABS. This is a well-known typological fact: many split-ergative languages have a syncretic unmarked case that serves both the nominative (accusative frames) and absolutive (ergative frames) functions.

The bridge documents this: we prove full coverage for accusative alignment and ERG-specific coverage for ergative alignment, noting that ABS → NOM is a morphological identity, not a gap in the theory.

For each accusative language, the structural cases [NOM, ACC] are both members of that language's case inventory.

For ergative languages, the structural cases [ABS, ERG] are in the inventory. Basque and Kaqchikel are fully ergative; Mam is tripartite (ERG, ACC, ABS all distinct).

Hindi and Georgian are split-ergative: accusative alignment in some tense/aspect contexts, ergative alignment in others. We prove: (1) Full accusative structural coverage (NOM, ACC ∈ inventory) (2) ERG ∈ inventory (the dependent case in ergative frames) (3) ABS ∉ inventory — these languages realize the absolutive function morphologically as NOM, so the algorithm's ABS output maps to a case that is in the inventory under a different label.

ABS is not in Hindi's inventory: the absolutive function (unmarked S/P in perfective) is morphologically NOM.

ABS is not in Georgian's inventory: the absolutive function is morphologically NOM in both aorist (ergative) and present (accusative) frames.

German Derivations #

"Der Mann sieht die Frau" (The man sees the woman)

"Der Mann schläft" (The man sleeps)

Turkish Derivations #

"Adam kadını gördü" (The man saw the woman)

"Adam uyudu" (The man slept)

Basque Derivations (Ergative) #

"Gizonak mutila ikusi du" (The man-ERG boy-ABS see AUX)

"Mutila etorri da" (The boy-ABS come AUX)

Hindi Split-Ergative Derivations #

Hindi perfective transitive: "Raam-ne roTii khaayii" (Ram-ERG bread-NOM ate) — ergative alignment

Hindi imperfective transitive: "Raam roTii khaataa hai" (Ram-NOM bread-ACC eats AUX) — accusative alignment

The same structural configuration (agent + patient) yields different case frames depending on the tense/aspect conditioning of the split.

In the perfective (ergative alignment), ERG is in the inventory but ABS is not — it is realized as NOM. The agent case (ERG) is correctly predicted; the patient case (ABS → NOM) requires the morphological identity documented in § 4.

Georgian Split-Ergative Derivations #

Georgian aorist transitive: "K'ac-ma bavšv-i naxa" (Man-ERG child-NOM saw) — ergative alignment

Georgian present transitive: "K'ac-i bavšv-s xedavs" (Man-NOM child-DAT sees) — accusative-like, with lexical DAT on object

In the present series, the patient receives lexical DAT from the verb, not structural ACC from dependent case.

In the present series, lexical DAT on the patient bleeds dependent ACC: the agent gets NOM (no case competitor) and the patient gets DAT (lexical from V). Both are in Georgian's inventory.