22. Agreement and ergativity in depth
🔴 Advanced · Lesson 22 of 23
Split ergativity is the hardest part of Kurmanji, for learners and for software alike. This lesson collects all the rules and tests them against zimankit’s ergativity checker.
The complete rule
| clause | agent / subject | object | verb agrees with |
|---|---|---|---|
| present-stem tense (present, subjunctive, future, imperative), any verb | direct | oblique | agent / subject |
| past-stem tense, intransitive verb | direct | · | subject |
| past-stem tense, transitive verb | oblique | direct | object |
| passive (hatin + infinitive) | · | direct (as subject) | that subject |
Past-stem tenses are the simple past, past progressive, present perfect and past perfect.
Agreement with plural objects
Because the verb agrees with the object in ergative clauses, a plural object needs a plural verb, even though a direct plural noun has no plural ending:
| # | Kurdish | Arabic script | English |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Min sêv xwar. | من سێڤ خوار. | I ate the apple. |
| 2 | Min sêv xwarin. | من سێڤ خوارن. | I ate the apples. |
| 3 | Wî heval dîtin. | وی هەڤال دیتن. | He saw the friends. |
Only the verb tells you whether sêv is one apple or several.
Pro-drop
The agent is often left out when it is clear from context: Te çi kir? “What did you do?” → Min tiştek nekir. “I didn’t do anything.” → Nekir. “(I) didn’t.” A checker must accept clauses without an overt agent.
The checker on correct and wrong sentences
| sentence | English | alignment | agent | object | verb agrees with | check |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ez nan dixwim. | I eat bread. | accusative | Ez (dir) | · | subject (1sg) | ✔ |
| Min nan xwar. | I ate bread. | ergative | Min (obl) | nan (dir) | object (3sg) | ✔ |
| Te ez dîtim. | You saw me. | ergative | Te (obl) | ez (dir) | object (1sg) | ✔ |
| Wan em dîtin. | They saw us. | ergative | Wan (obl) | em (dir) | object (pl) | ✔ |
| Ez hatim. | I came. | accusative | Ez (dir) | · | subject (1sg) | ✔ |
| Ez nan xwar. | (wrong) direct agent | ergative | · | Ez (dir) | object (3sg) | ✘ ergative clause without an overt oblique agent (pro-drop); verb ending marks 3sg but object 'Ez' is 1sg |
| Min tu dîtim. | (wrong) agreement with the agent | ergative | Min (obl) | tu (dir) | object (1sg) | ✘ verb ending marks 1sg but object 'tu' is 2sg |
| Min hatim. | (wrong) oblique subject of an intransitive verb | accusative | · | · | subject (1sg) | ✘ subject not overt; verb ending marks 1sg |
| Min sêv xwarin. | I ate the apples. (correct) | ergative | Min (obl) | sêv (dir) | object (pl) | ✘ verb ending marks pl but object 'sêv' is 3sg |
| Jinê nan çêkir. | The woman made bread. (correct) | ergative | · | Jinê (dir) | object (3sg) | ✔ |
Read the last rows critically, because they show where the current checker is still weak:
- Min hatim is rightly flagged, but only because no subject is found; the message should say “the subject of an intransitive verb is direct: ez hatim”.
- Min sêv xwarin is correct (apples, plural), but a bare noun looks singular, so the checker reports a false mismatch. A real grammar checker must treat a bare direct noun as singular or plural.
- Jinê nan çêkir gets a ✔ for the wrong reason. Without a lexicon the checker cannot know that jin is feminine, so it takes jinê as a direct object and assumes the agent was dropped. With the gender lexicon from the wordlist pipeline, jinê would be read correctly as the oblique agent.
All three are concrete tasks for the grammar-checker project.
Ezafe agreement
The ezafe must match the gender and number of the noun it follows:
| wrong | right | why |
|---|---|---|
| * malê bavê min | mala bavê min | mal is feminine → -a |
| * bava min | bavê min | bav is masculine → -ê |
| * hevala min (for several friends) | hevalên min | plural → -ên |
Summary
- Present: accusative. Past transitive: ergative (oblique agent, direct object, agreement with the object). Past intransitive and passive: subject agreement.
- Bare direct nouns can be plural; the verb shows it.
- Ezafe agrees in gender and number.