Ergative Constructions in Indo-Aryan

Summary

Vladimir Miltner’s linguistic study explores the phenomenon of ergativity in Indo‑Aryan languages. An ergative construction is one in which the subject of a transitive verb in the perfective aspect is marked differently from the subject of an intransitive verb, often resembling the object marker. Although ergativity is associated with languages such as Basque and Tibetan, several Indo‑Aryan languages display split ergativity. Miltner traces the historical development of this feature from Vedic Sanskrit through Middle Indo‑Aryan (Prakrit, Apabhraṃśa) to New Indo‑Aryan languages like Hindi, Gujarati and Punjabi. In ancient Sanskrit, ergative constructions were absent: verbs agreed with subjects regardless of aspect. Miltner notes that in Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit and Pāli, periphrastic perfects using past participles introduced a construction wherein the agent was demoted and expressed by an instrumental or genitive case, while the verb agreed with the patient. This innovation carried over into Prakrits such as Ardhamāgadhī and Shauraseni, which underlie Jaina canonical texts. Examples from the Āgamas show past tense clauses where the agent is marked by instrumental postpositions like ‘-enā’ and the verb agrees with the object. The article then examines Apabhraṃśa and early New Indo‑Aryan texts where ergativity becomes more entrenched. Miltner argues that the development of the postposition ‘-ne’ in Hindi and Gujarati originates in these instrumental markers. He provides examples from the fifteenth‑century Braj Bhakti poetry and later prose to illustrate the increasing frequency of ergative alignment in perfective clauses. He also discusses exceptions: verbs denoting perception and motion resist ergativity, and certain dialects maintain nominative alignment. Miltner situates Indo‑Aryan ergativity within the broader typology of alignment systems, noting parallels with Iranian languages and suggesting that contact with Dravidian languages may have reinforced the pattern. The paper concludes that ergativity in Indo‑Aryan is not an aberration but a natural outcome of historical phonological and syntactic changes. His diachronic perspective sheds light on the syntactic structures observed in contemporary Indo‑Aryan languages and provides a framework for further research.