Ergative Verb Agreement

What is this verb? Is this sentence below correct? “He was running the black horse.” If this is correct, is the verb [ran] also a paired ergative verb? Many languages with erotic marking show what is called optional agativity, where ergative marking is not always expressed in all situations. McGregor (2010) points to a number of contexts in which we often see the option of ergativity, arguing that choice is often not really optional, but is influenced by semantics and pragmatism. Note that, unlike shared agativity, which occurs regularly but in limited locations, optional access may occur in a number of environments, but may not be used in a way that seems regular or consistent. The term ergative-absolute is considered unsatisfactory by some, given that there are very few languages without a reason with a nominative and precise orientation. Instead, they postulate that we should only talk about ergative and absolute systems that use languages to varying degrees. English has a derived morphology that corresponds to ergativity, because it acts on verbs and intransmitter objects of transitary verbs. For some intranspirant verbs, the addition of the suffix “-ee” to the verb creates a noun for the person executing the plot: the relationship between ergative systems and precise systems can be schematically represented as follows: (d) The extension of the function of the S-conformance markers, usually derived from the Copula as in (iii) above, can be described schematically as follows: (d) The extension of the function of the S compliance markers, generally derived from Copula as indicated in (iii) above, is in accordance with A. Such an evolution seems to have occurred in Persian, where the forms of over-conformity of the verb are identical to S and A. In complicated cases (for example. B in many Pamir languages), we see the contamination of conformity markers derived from cliquetic pronouns with those derived from Copula (with the possible participation of endings that are part of the present). all languages have intransctive clauses that contain a basic verb and sentence; This substantive sentence is by definition associated with the syntactic relation S. All languages also have transit clauses that contain one verb and two substantive sentences; In this case, the substantive sentence that “could initiate or control activity” is related to the syntactic relationship A, while the second substantive sentence is associated with the syntactic relationship O.

The true semantic role associated with the syntactic relationship A varies from one worm to one verb, but is for example the agent of verbs “affect” as hit, donor for verbs “giving” like, the spokesperson for “speaking” verbs like tell and the collector for “attention” as see. . . .