Universal 6: case with only zero exponence ⇒ functions of that case include that of encoding IntrSubj
Original
Where there is a case system, the only case which has only zero morphemes is the one which includes among its meanings that of the subject of the intransitive verb.
Standardized
IF there is a case which has only zero exponence, THEN it will be that case whose functions include that of encoding the subject of intransitive verbs.
Languages with “marked nominative”, i.e. with overt exponence for all nouns in that case, and some other case with zero exponence for all nouns:Oromo, Dasenech, Kambata (Cushitic, Afroasiatic) (Bender 1976: 182, 205, 253). Zayse (Omotic, Afroasiatic) (Hayward (ed.)1990: 241). Some Berber languages (spoken in Morocco and Algeria, Afroasiatic; Sasse 1984, Chaker 1988). Nilotic languages (Andersen 1988: 321).Ryukyuan (Japanese-Ryukyuan) (Comrie 1994: 13). Yuman languages (e.g. Maricopa); Wappo (Yukian) (Li, Thompson, & Sawyer 1977: 90). Maidu (Maiduan) (Dixon 1911: 711).
1. The Original formulation is perhaps misleading. Latin has a case system; there is a case whose meanings include that of marking intransitive subjects, viz. nominative; but it does not always have zero exponence (cp. dominu-s, puer-Ø; rek-s, consul-Ø).Other older Indo-European languages also have marked nominative singulars:Old Norse (N. Germanic), Gothic (extinct, E. Germanic), Old French (Italic);but again, non-zero is not the only alternative for nouns in NOM.SG here.Chukchi (Chukchi-Kamchatkan) is no counterexample either, although its absolutive singular is the morphologically most complex noun form, expressed by a variety of suffixes or also by reduplication of stem. There is no other case which would only have zero exponence. 2. Alternative statement:No case other than that whose functions include that of encoding intransitive subjects can have exclusively zero exponence.This is stricter than the Standardized rendering, prohibiting zero exponence for further case(s) IN ADDITION TO that encoding intransitive subject. The marked nominatives from above remain counterexamples.The Standardized version is implicational if read like this:IF exclusively zero exponence for a case other than that encoding intransitive subject, THEN exclusively zero exponence also for the case encoding intransitive subject.3. Cf. #1108.
1. The Original formulation is perhaps misleading. Latin has a case system; there is a case whose meanings include that of marking intransitive subjects, viz. nominative; but it does not always have zero exponence (cp. dominu-s, puer-Ø; rek-s, consul-Ø).Other older Indo-European languages also have marked nominative singulars:Old Norse (N. Germanic), Gothic (extinct, E. Germanic), Old French (Italic);but again, non-zero is not the only alternative for nouns in NOM.SG here.Chukchi (Chukchi-Kamchatkan) is no counterexample either, although its absolutive singular is the morphologically most complex noun form, expressed by a variety of suffixes or also by reduplication of stem. There is no other case which would only have zero exponence. 2. Alternative statement:No case other than that whose functions include that of encoding intransitive subjects can have exclusively zero exponence.This is stricter than the Standardized rendering, prohibiting zero exponence for further case(s) IN ADDITION TO that encoding intransitive subject. The marked nominatives from above remain counterexamples.The Standardized version is implicational if read like this:IF exclusively zero exponence for a case other than that encoding intransitive subject, THEN exclusively zero exponence also for the case encoding intransitive subject.3. Cf. #1108.