when i'm in charge

i'm going to outlaw ergativity.

that is all.

"like gaul, the midterm will have three parts"

So I'm reviewing concepts for this typology exam, and having a hell of a time keeping Fraser and Ray out of my head while I'm doing it.

Causatives: What are the chief ways to increase valency? What is a morphological causative? What is the causee? causal agent? downstairs object? What is the relation of noun phrase accessibility to the encoding of causees? What are chomeurs? What is the antitransitive?

Fraser: The causee will be encoded to fill the topmost vacant position in the accessibility hierarchy.

Ray: It wants to be on the left.

Fraser: Well, saying 'it wants to be on the left' tends to ascribe a degree of animacy that a noun phrase doesn't really deserve, don't you think, Ray?

Ray: What?

Fraser: It's just a word. It can't want anything.

Ray: That, that was just a part of speech, Fraser.

Fraser: Well, yes, it was, but that's not strictly relevant. Perhaps you meant it was just a figure of speech?

Ray: [smack]


Relative clause: What are its parts? What are its functions? What does it mean to "relativize on a position?" What is the noun phrase accessibility hierarchy?

Ray: What's a relativizer?

Fraser: No, Ray. In English, 'that' is a relativizer, and 'who,' 'whom,' 'which,' and 'whose' are relative pronouns.

Ray: You didn't answer my question. What's a relativizer?

Fraser: No, it isn't.

Ray: [smack]