Languages of the class type have no case paradigm. In rare cases when languages of the active type have an elementary noun declension, its fundamental components (active and inactive cases) have no subject-object orientation. Ergative and absolutive cases in the ergative type are characterized by a fused distribution of subject and object functions. Nominative and accusative cases of the nominative system are transparently oriented towards subject-object relations.
Standardized
IF clause structure is of the class type, THEN there is no case inflection. IF alignment is predominantly active, THEN there is either no case inflection or cases encode active and inactive participation rather than subject and object. IF alignment is predominantly ergative, THEN case marking non-distinctively expresses subject and object relations. IF alignment is predominantly nominative [i.e., ergative], THEN cases distinctively express subject and object.
Keywords
alignment, class, active, ergative, accusative, subject, object, case
All of Klimov’s implications and frequentalia have a diachronic dimension, since class, active, ergative, accusative types are conceived of as developmental stages, following upon each other in this sequence. See Klimov 1983 for what he calls class type. It is difficult to see how a “class” system, characterized by class agreements, can be set apart from the other alignment types.
All of Klimov’s implications and frequentalia have a diachronic dimension, since class, active, ergative, accusative types are conceived of as developmental stages, following upon each other in this sequence. See Klimov 1983 for what he calls class type. It is difficult to see how a “class” system, characterized by class agreements, can be set apart from the other alignment types.