Chol Agreement and Case Fragment #
Agreement morphology and case assignment for Chol (Cholan, Mayan), a low absolutive language with aspect-based split alignment. Per [VA11] §1.9.4, Chol is "an ergative language" in which "the ergative pattern is split in all non-perfective aspects, resulting in nominative-accusative alignment" — Set A indicates both transitive and intransitive subjects in non-perfective. The formal-syntactic analyses of [Coo13] and [Ima20] reanalyse this surface pattern.
Main declarations #
Chol.ArgPositionwith.case,.accCase: argument positions and their perfective (ergative) and non-perfective (extended-ergative) case.Chol.absPosition: LOW-ABS morpheme placement.Chol.setAExponent,Chol.setBExponent: the Set A (ERG/GEN) and Set B (ABS) exponent tables ([VA11] Table 10).Chol.Extraction.realize,Chol.absObjectInNonFinite,Chol.absIntranSInNonFinite: the (unmarked) extraction marking and non-finite absolutive availability.
Implementation notes #
Descriptive vs analytical framing of the non-perfective pattern #
The descriptive grammar ([VA11]) characterizes the non-perfective alignment as nominative-accusative: Set A as a nominative-like marker grouping S with A, Set B as accusative on O.
The formal-syntactic analyses cited here label the same surface pattern
differently: [Coo13] argues the non-perfective construction
embeds a nominalized clause (with the aspectual predicate choñkol as
matrix), so Set A on the embedded subject is genitive-from-D, NOT
nominative — the morphological identity of Set A with the possessive
marker (cf. tyi j-kajpelo 'in my coffee field' vs tyi j-k'el-e-ø
'I saw him', both with Set A j- per [VA11]
p. 76) is taken as evidence. [Ima20] parameterizes Mayan
split-ergative alignment via two parameters: (i) the Restriction on
Nominalization (RON) on the nominalizing head n, and (ii) the Mayan
Absolutive Parameter (high vs low ABS, after
[CMPP14]). For Chol, n does not impose
RON, so S/A is the highest DP in the nominalized clause and receives
genitive from D — matching Coon's analytical view. The substrate's
extendedErgative.assignCase returns .gen (Coon's analytical view);
a descriptive-grammar implementation would return .nom. The label
"extended ergative" is Coon's coinage, generalizing one subtype of
[Dix94]'s split-ergative-on-TAM-lines pattern.
Morpheme order and word-class status #
Per [VA11] §3.4: in Chol "the aspect
markers are auxiliaries" — tyi (perfective) and mi (imperfective)
are aspectual auxiliaries (independent words preceding the verbal
complex), not particles, not clitics, not verbal prefixes. Set A
ergative/genitive markers are prefixes on the verbal complex (per
[VA11] §4.1.1; some prior literature treats them
as proclitics — [MC07], [AL09]).
Set B absolutive markers are suffixes (per [KN84]
p. 90, originally cliticized pronouns).
Schematic order: [Aux] [ERG-modifier*-ROOT-DERIV-STATUS-ABS], with
the bracketed verbal complex as a single phonological unit. Contrasts
with Kaqchikel's [Aux] [ABS-ERG-Stem] (high-ABS).
The two agreement paradigms (Set A / Set B) #
- Set A (ergative in perfective; nominative-or-genitive in non-perfective; possessive on nominals): prefixes
- Set B (absolutive in perfective; accusative in non-perfective): suffixes
Case licensing (analytical, per [Coo13]) #
- ERG: inherent from transitive v
- ABS (transitive): structural from Voice (low absolutive)
- ABS (intransitive): structural from Infl
- GEN (non-perfective S/A): from D under nominalization
Accusative side (non-perfective) #
In non-perfective aspect, the aspectual predicate choñkol embeds a nominalized clause. The RON does NOT hold: the external argument may be generated inside the nominalized clause. Result (Coon analysis): S/A = GEN (from D), O = ABS (from Voice).
What this fragment doesn't model #
Per [VA11] §1.9.4, Chol exhibits all
four Dixon alignment types: ergative-absolutive, nominative-accusative, Split-S
(some intransitives obligatorily Sa = Set A on light verb cha'l; others
obligatorily So = Set B), and Fluid-S (verbs like wäy 'sleep' that
take either Set A or Set B). The current ArgPosition.intranS collapses
Sa/So/fluid-S into a single intransitive subject category — sufficient
for the perfective↔non-perfective split formalization but undermodels
the agentive split. Future refinement: split into intranSAgentive /
intranSPatientive / intranSFluid.
Argument positions #
Argument positions in a Chol clause, aliased to the canonical
Features.Prominence.ArgumentRole (S/A/P/R/T).
Equations
Instances For
Perfective (ergative) case assignment: Mayan.ergCaseChol
(A → ERG, S/P → ABS).
Equations
Instances For
Non-perfective (extended-ergative) case assignment: Mayan.accCaseChol
(S/A → GEN, P → ABS), shared with Q'anjob'al.
Equations
Instances For
Absolutive position (LOW-ABS) #
Chol's absolutive morphemes appear in low (post-stem) position, from the morpheme order ASP-ERG-ROOT-(DERIV)-SUFFIX-ABS.
Equations
Instances For
Extraction marking #
Chol requires no Agent Focus morphology for any extraction —
unlike Q'anjob'al, the diagnostic for "lacking syntactic ergativity"
in the [CMPP14] sense. Every argument
extracts freely; the resulting ambiguity when both arguments are
3rd person follows from the absent AF marking:
Maxki₁ tyi y-il-ä (___₁) jiñi wiñik (___₁)?
'Who saw the man?' / 'Who did the man see?'
Equations
- Chol.Extraction.realize x✝ = []
Instances For
WALS-style label: extraction is unmarked.
Instances For
Non-finite absolutive availability #
In Chol non-finite (aspectless) embedded clauses, absolutive objects are available — Chol is LOW-ABS, so v⁰ licenses the object without Infl⁰.
Mejl [i-k'el-oñ] 'She can see me.' (ABS object ✓)
Choñkol [k-mek'-ety] 'I am hugging you.' (ABS object ✓)
Equations
- Chol.absObjectInNonFinite = true
Instances For
Absolutive intransitive subjects are not available in Chol non-finite clauses — they take the ergative/possessive prefix instead.
Choñkol [k-ts'äm-el] 'I am bathing.' (ERG prefix, not ABS)
*Choñkol [ts'äm-i-yoñ] intended: 'I am bathing.' (ABS ✗)
Equations
- Chol.absIntranSInNonFinite = false
Instances For
Set A (ergative/possessive/genitive) markers: pre-consonantal allomorphs
([VA11] Table 10, p. 83). Note the morphophonemic
rule k- → j- /_k (1sg before a /k/ root, e.g., tyi j-kajpelo
'in my coffee field' p. 76). Plural forms use the inclusive clitic
=la for 1pl (the unmarked plural form per VA §4.2); the exclusive
paradigm with =l(oj)oñ is a per-language refinement not exposed
by the canonical φ-cell Agreement.Cell substrate.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Canonical Set A exponent table for cross-Mayan typology. The
pre-consonantal allomorph is the citation form (matching Q'anjob'al's
convention); per-context realization uses setAExponentPreV before
vowel-initial roots.
Equations
Instances For
Set B (absolutive) markers: suffixes ([VA11]
Table 10, p. 83). 3rd person is null (-∅). Plurals use the
inclusive =la clitic for 1pl per the convention above.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
3rd person absolutive is null — invariant across the standard
Mayan branches (Cholan, Q'anjob'alan, Tseltalan, K'ichean) per
[KN84] Table 8 reconstruction. Not universally
pan-Mayan: Mam's default Set B tz'= surfaces in the 3sg slot
([Sco23]), and Mayan.isStandard excludes Mam from
the relevant cross-Mayan theorem (mayan_p3sg_abs_null).
3rd person Set A allomorphy: pre-consonantal i- vs pre-vocalic
(i)y-. Distinct from Q'anjob'al's s- vs y- (the proto-Mayan
*s- ~ *y- allomorphy was leveled to *r → y in proto-Tseltalan,
and Chol inherited the leveled form per [KN84]
p. 91).