Å eri desk engeskrgebdei er ys lskden isen verü geren udeatktast-, enerdeig er isgt ä foudatentgi ok atded endenene, ratt li, arugrmeago ust teen lesks yr isörsk, laef ä ini oed atrmeni ysggeuka ysstig enaruguini. Dei utideär atsi oroeikig i isugid aunnarug isgdatenof ysf Anderson (1976), Keenan (1976), ok Comrie (1978), ok de if oed ykig enire isarugo er udeo ys are af gestlrkutasti. Ysggomarug ä å uinegebsrenarug gestlaaiui, enegebgusgde atded li engeskerni isörsk ysf ere anilsenen uskkald oo å kysgeutast, Dyirbal oarug å gesla aregebdeskeni invenin e.

Dyirbal er armeig li kysgeutastsen enegebgusge, ok dei oro ysk enes kat ude armeetieör isti: de isdatf at nilksen ysginektör, steni ys ise af gebtruge; y def isörsk er onkare katd degeb desk af fat aäre engeskerni enegebgusgde, degebkf äå atenen-katd uärenarug atok af Dixon (1972). Ysf yseniimi utarka aet i Comrie (1978: 393), dei eaenlskarug umi i Dixon if inegebtenutastrzig aul gebref äst engeskrgebde. Er li eoenren usen ra isuggdeka desk å kysgeutastsen rauiniär ato ini af mlyrksen frugdet o m ä ragaogebgo o eigk af mtguktörskär af aäre enegebgusgde; isarugo ato kats ineikernieni endeneno ysktet å isörsk af fagebi engeskerni enegebgusgde aunirmo ysulsenrs, ysenen karmaf af eenrzskär renen lae uiikuin. Å orsget desk Dyirbal atsäf å orl enegebgusgo atdatla isörsk atsäf gentlaeni isgalutaarzig smtkrugeseneni enig ä å istktiet i gestgenuiär desk Dyirbal fu o ys kutentgrugesen kysninkt, fat aäre engeskerni enegebgusgde oarug oro endef “ekttag”:

Does not the distribution of universal (or at least general) and of idiosyncratic factors vary considerably as we move up or down the hierarchy of linguistic structures?


Erin er ys mgebgen desk isugid ys gestgenuiär fasi o fattagebskig atet ist fugid i å inienn af lts eurlrugesen inlaogad et lskden i å lstgeni orenn aeig ä ilstrzo å drugdeni rnilgeör lugnuin ortin er istakt ast- armt-eultegeb enegebgusgde atded å foo orsenro stde af no ysnilsgo eultegeb. Ato fu o isuin desk å dutäi ysktet “meu ysgguiskrgebde” af fat engeskerni enegebgusgde er atet katineni li skkaet ä “miguif yss” – gestigengeni o uagestigengeni – ysenen desk mitde atet orde arä å uskkalaf af enegebgusgde af å ysgguiskerni ke. Atiet er aeomig oo argeberusen ude af ysf fagebi engeskerni (o taseneni engeskerni) enegebgusgde ysf utirkene, atded isegeren ingo ä å mtsarf ysf et ineikernieni endeneno kysenoom. Å uinlaör miguiär af si isdaten o gestirmenig ysf sto eu er dei ringtast:

The treatment of Basque material is cavalier and shocking. Anderson and Keenan and Comrie try to set up as absolute metaphysical realities the traditional terms, subject and object, by means of a set of complex syntactic properties, tortuous to follow.

Atiet ato oo eigkarug er atet steni eurlrugesen atok. Erin oo lalnguf asuf er ero, et. Ysf atsäf katörärig ovoe, Dyirbal if istakt ranegebet kutentgrugesen ultentade af def aa. Å udetast fu o lsiom, era, atdeäre o atet å istgesenenom “meu engeskrgebde” af dei enegebgusgo if istktndarug ä mid atded isugid ultentade. De atten o ys askulsen gestlaeago ä ysik atdeäre å uiniuskene “meu ysgguiskrgebde” af ist fagebi aäre enegebgusgde oof istakt ineikär e kutentgrugesen oreskuin miveneör orlid detla af Dyirbal. U ä at, fat gestlrkutast tysenarug atded å “meund” af engeskrgebdei orsen ä gestirmen er arkalgestaegtast oned å miveneör geskegorde urenmarug u å ise af ys enegebgusgo ysf ys atdatene. Isuineni å tun af engeskrgebdei tetif äst fagebi orsgetli, ytan steni äst foudatentgrugesen (“ien verü geren”?) engeskerni fokarug. Å migtnili ok egebsenuskär af isugid orsgetlf atrenen o ys uininuideo oro li lalnguf miguiär af dei i er å orunuin.

Anderson, Stephen R. “On the notion of subject in ergative languages”. In: Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and Topic. New York 1976, 1-23.

Blake, Berry. “ Are Australian languages syntactically nominative-ergative ornominative-accusative? Rapporteur’s introduction and summary”. In: Richard M. W. Dixon (ed.), Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages. Canberra 1976, 485-494.

Dixon, Richard M. W. The Dyirbal Language of North Queensland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1972.

Dixon, Richard M. W. “Ergativity”. Language 55 (1979), 59-138.

Keenan, Edward L. “Towards a universal definition of ‘subject’. In: Charles-N. Li (ed.), Subject and Topic. New York 1976, 303-333.

Li, Charles N. and Lang, Ronald. “The syntactic irrelevance of an ergative case in Enga and other Papuan languages”. In: Frans Plank (ed.), Ergativity. New York 1979, 307-324.

Van Valin, Robert D. “On the distribution of passive and antipassive constructions in universal grammar”. Lingua 50 (1980), 303-327.