Talk:Unergative verb

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Error : ergatives are truly intransitive

There is an error in the last sentence. "In other words, ergatives are truly intransitive, unergatives are not." should be : "In other words, unergatives are truly intransitive, ergatives are not."

It is in contradiction with the first sentence of the article and the definiton given in the article on ergative verbs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisblom86 (talkcontribs) 13:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Chrisblom86 (talk) 13:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion

I agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.32.126.14 (talk) 17:34, 23 October 2007

To merge the unergative entry with unaccusative is not a good idea. Leaving the hope of figuring out a coherent derivation for both types of verbs, descriptively, they can be (at least) two different verb types with different syntactic distribution. A hyperlink that linking the two entries (as it is now) is a better idea (than merge).

Tomatoprincess (talk) 09:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree to merge. If every intransitive verb is either unaccusative or unergative, with a gray area in the middle, then I believe that the distinction is best presented in a single article. The unaccusative verb article is currently in much better shape than this one, and I don't see what could be added here that isn't already in the other article, or equally relevant to the other article. CapnPrep (talk) 14:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the tag, and left the articles separate.Comhreir (talk) 02:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-proposed the original, less ambitious merge, for which the consensus above was mostly favorable. I think people were just waiting for someone to do the dirty work, but in the meantime let's keep the discussion open. CapnPrep (talk) 03:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok it's been a year and nothing has happened. I'm taking the tag off. Comhreir (talk) 14:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch example

The Dutch example says that the verbs can be passivised, but then the example has a * indicating that it isn't allowed. Which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.186.93.103 (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The * pertain to the English translation of the Dutch example. The Dutch example is well-formed, the English translation is not. --Chrisblom86 (talk) 13:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another way of looking at "run"

Can it be that the verb "run" can be either an ergative verb or an unergative verb, depending on its meanings? Like below:

ergative: The computer runs. I run the computer.

unergative: The man runs. (man is the agent)

Keith Galveston (talk) 06:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better examples are needed. Resign also can be transitive. If I resign an office, then that office is resigned. Rwflammang (talk) 20:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One can also talk the talk, talk the night away, talk someone into doing something or talk the hind legs off a donkey, so' talk isn't necessarily intransitive either. He ran the idea past a friend, who talked him into resigning his post—none of the three examples is intransitive. Musiconeologist (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

resign

Is that for sure that resign is unergative? How about the recently resigned president ?--84.160.57.62 (talk) 09:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page needs examples from ergative languages

Unaccusatives are a somewhat marked construction in nominative/accusative languages. Their counterpart in ergative languages are the unergative verbs. This page really needs examples from ergative languages to properly demonstrate the concept. --Curiousdannii (talk) 15:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

yes, we need to know if they are nominative or accusative, ergative or absolutive, or what in tripartite alignment Swerup (talk) 13:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]