Annie Montaut Inalco 
  

The paper aims at linking the historic evolution of the past and perfect system in Indo-Aryan (with special reference to Hindi/Urdu) to an interpretation of the ergative pattern as a stative predication of localization. It is generally considered that the ergativity pattern is a typologically atypical feature among the family of Indo-European languages, a feature specific to the Western group of Indo-Aryan dialects, and that split ergativity is linked with transitivity and volition. I first show that such an evolution has been central to the Romance languages too and that non ergative Indo-Aryan languages have not altogether ignored the structure but at a certain point went further along the same historical logic as have Roman languages. I will then propose an analysis of the structure as a predication of localization similar to other stative predications (mainly with "dative" subjects) in Indo-Aryan, supporting this claim by a tentative inquiry into the markers for "ergative" case in Indo-Aryan. The mirative meaning of the simple past form, and the semantic features of the role Agent in Hindi/Urdu are also mentioned as elements for the description of the IA ergative pattern.

Introduction

When George Grierson, in the full rise of language classification at the turn of the last century,1 classified the languages of India, he defined for Indo-Aryan an inner circle supposedly closer to the original Aryan stock, characterized by the lack of conjugation in the past. This inner circle included Hindi/Urdu and Eastern Panjabi, which indeed exhibit no personal endings in the definite past, but only gender-number agreement, therefore pertaining more to the adjectival/nominal class for their morphology (calâ, go-MSG "went", kiyâ, do-MSG "did", bola, speak-MSG "spoke"). The "outer circle" in contrast, including Marathi, Gujarati, Bengali, Oriya, Assamese, shows personal endings in every verb tense, therefore has a "conjugation", and should be sharply distinguished from the languages of the inner core, with intermediate languages arranged into a "middle circle" (Bhojpuri, Eastern Hindi). 2 What it means is that agreement only in gender-number, along with the ergative structure as we call it today, was supposed to be the mark of a truly authentic Indo-Aryan language. This theory was strongly criticized by Suniti Kumar Chatterji and later abandoned by Grierson, but it is still held that ergative Indo-Aryan languages (roughly speaking in the West) radically differ from the non-ergative ones (in the East) and are extremely atypical within the wider Indo-European family. What is unique in fact is the modern development of a full fledged ergative structure out of the nominal predicates, 3 not the historical phase where participial predicates were used with instrumental agents, which in other languages got converted into a nominative structure. Both ergative and nominative patterns in Indo-European rather represent different stages of the same logic in renewing the system (section 2), both in the past and future (section 3). It will appear at the same time that the distinctiveness of the ergative alignment, at least in Indo-Aryan, does not consist in being an inverted mirror of the nominative alignment since it rather patterns with other localizing predications well established in the global economy of the system such as the experiential dative alignment (section 4). At the same time I will try to explore the main paths of grammaticization of aspect, tense and modality, starting with the non past system, which helps understand the evolution of the past system (section 1).

The aim of the paper is twofold: inquiring into the renewal of TAM categories by sketching the broad lines of the historical evolution of verb forms in Indo-Aryan and specially Hindi/Urdu; and inquiring into the nature of the ergative alignment, along with other nonnominative alignments.

The problem: why is ergativity present only in some Indo-Aryan languages?

First of all, we must note that the form which will be the crucial point of this paper is not a usual one in the global economy of a verbal paradigm: the form for instance for "said", "walked", etc. is unmarked in Hindi/Urdu: its meaning today is past (anterior event: preterit), and it is morphologically unmarked, with no tense aspect person endings. .Only gender/number endings are present: calâ, walk-ms As opposed to it the form for the general general present, usually unmarked in most verbal paradigms in languages of the world, is marked: caltâ hûN, two words, 5 morphs (bol, t for aspect, â for gender/numer, h-the base of verbal auxiliary for present, -ûN for first person ending). See table Survey of Inda was completed. Moreover, the sharp critics of S.K. Chatterji modified Grierson's final presentation of the Indo-Aryan family. 3 Which also occurred in some Iranian languages, like Pashto.

History only can make this paradigm understandable. The major event in verbal morphology was the drastic impoverishment in Middle Indo-Aryan (MIA) of the rich ancient paradigm: whereas Old Indo-Aryan (OIA) had some forty synthetic forms for tense-aspect in Vedic Sanskrit, mood, voice, MIA maintained very few finite forms, and in some regions only the present in the indicative (imperative was maintained everywhere). Some dialects and languages also maintained the old synthetic sigmatic future in -Sya (> s > h). All of them used the past participle to represent past events. Out of this extremely reduced paradigm of synthetic forms, a number of compound forms with auxiliaries developed, leading to the rich present analytical paradigm of HU: [START_REF] Nespital | Zur Aufstellung eines Seminventars der Tempus Kategorie im Hindi und Urdu und zu seiner Charasteristik[END_REF] for instance registers 39 tense grams and [START_REF] Dymshits | Vyavahârik Hindî VyâkaraN[END_REF], who, unlike Nespital, does not consider the vector verbs as aspect markers, registers about 20.

Modern facts and their origin in OIA

The past (preterit, perfect and pluperfect) in modern Hindi/Urdu contrasts with the present (and imperfect, and future) in the following way, both morphological and syntactic: the verb does not agree with the agent but with the patient (respectively subject and object in the translation) in (a) whereas it does in (b). This contrast is typical of the split ergativity (aspect split), which display an ergative pattern in perfective statements and a nominative pattern for non perfective statements, a contrast well attested in world languages but not in Indo-European ones.

(1)a. As opposed to the present system, where one flexional form was maintained throughout MIA, the past (accomplished/perfective) system was quite early dominated by the passive past participle or "verbal adjective" in -ita (> iya > ya > a). Originally used for transitive processes, the participle expressed the result of the event, somewhat in the same way as we today can say "understood" for "I have understood". In classical Sanskrit already, the canonical expression of 'X had done /did Y' is 'by-X Y done', with the agent in the instrumental case (or genitive for pronouns) and the predicative participle agreeing in gender and number with the patient:

(2) mayâ / mama tat kRtam I-instr / I-GEN this-NOM.N.SG done-NOM.N.SG I did/have done that As is well known, this is the pattern inherited by the present HU ergative structure (1a) in the perfect as opposed to the nominative structure in the present or future: However, given the fact that Sanskrit gave birth to all modern Indo-Aryan languages, we may wonder why only some (roughly speaking Western) of the Indo-Aryan languages developed the aspectually split ergative structure. Bengali for instance is a consistently nominative language, with nominative subjects and verb agreeing in person with the subject at all tenseaspects (5):

(3) âmi boi.Ta por.l.âm b. tui boi.Ta por.l.is 1SG book-DEF read-PST-1SG

2SG book-DEF read-PST-2SG I read the book you read the book

Similar patterns during MIA and early NIA

The question is all the more puzzling since a similar pre-ergative structure prevailed in all the Asoka Prakrits, in the East as well as in the West: (4a) is from Girnar in the North-Western region, whereas (4b), with the same structure as (2), is from Jaugada in the Magadhean region, presently Bengal-Orissa-Assam-Bihar. Since Present predicates contrast with this structure in the same way as (1a) with (1b), as shown in (5b), from Prakrit, with a nominative subject hau (< Sk aham), whereas in (5a) the agent is maked (oblique tai) and the predicate agrees wih the patient hinduâN (mp), not with the agent. (5c) contrasts in the same statement present and past predicates:

( This opposition between past and present systems started prevailing as soon as classical Sanskrit, and Bloch noticed the wide generalization of the nominal statements for expressing past: in Vetâla (10 th century) 1115 expressions of past are of that type against 38 for finite verb forms (1906: 60). Predicative passive past participles were then used to express "various nuances of past tense and modality", but this dominance does not mean that no other form existed: various finite forms were still in use, but none prevailed on others, and they became less and less frequent in texts, almost disappearing in MIA (Bloch 1906: 47-48).

What we still find in ancient NIA (the earliest phase of modern Indo-Aryan from 12 th to 16 th century) is the same nominal structure for past / accomplished statements, that is to say a pre-ergative structure. The only difference with Asoka's statements in (4) is that the instrumental (or genitive) is no longer a distinct case since it got fused with other oblique cases, except with the locative which remained distinct in many languages. Old Bengali (6a-b), Old Awadhi (7), which are Eastern dialects considered to derive from Magadhean Prakrit, present the same structure as Old Braj (8a), Old Panjabi (8b) and Old Marathi (8c) which are Western dialects considered to derive from Saurasenic or Marashtri Prakrits:

(6)a. kona purane, Kanhâ, hena sunili kâhini which purana-LOC Krishna, so heared-PST-F.SG story-F.SG in which Purana, Krishna, did (you/one) In ( 6) and ( 7) from the East as well as in (8) from the West, the predicate is a nominal form agreeing in gender and number with the patient, whereas the agent, if expressed, is in the oblique form and does not control verb agreement. This series shows that up to a certain point the expression of past was general, and bifurcated later, between 14 th and 16 th c., since the first Eastern statements (from Chatterji 1926) are from 14 th century caryâs.

2. The nature of the divergence : semantics and syntax of aspect

Evolution of aspectual semantics

As the structure in (4) got generalized, it started to loose its expressive meaning, originally emphasizing the result and not the process, so that it soon acquired an open meaning, encompassing process and result (cf. Bloch: "various nuances of past tense and modality", ie aspect). The original restricted meaning of the passive past participle, a state, can be represented as an open unbound space, not taking into account any boundary, as opposed to the anterior which only takes into account the bound interval (event) in disjunction from the time of utterance, and in contrast with the perfect, which represents the adjacency of the resulting state with the event which produced it, allowing for the topological representation below (from Desclès 1992): When the participles generalized further on, they acquired an open meaning (anterior event / preterit, resulting state / perfect). With this process, the nominal sentence with a participle or verbal adjective became more and more perceived as an active predication since there was no other option, and it lost its original passive meaning and orientation towards the patient. (Parenthesis: the passive pattern is initially supposed to echo the topicalization of the patient due to emphasis on the result of the process rather than on the process itself. When this pattern started being grammaticized, it lost its expressive force of patient topicalization and the topic started shifting towards the agent5 ).

At the same time, as the need was felt in certain statements to avoid ambiguity or to emphasize the resulting state, a new form was created by the adjunction of a copula, originally expressive, then later on grammaticized in its turn with the meaning of resulting state. Initially the copula occurred in the first and second person to prevent agent ambiguity (Bloch):

(9)a kenâsy abhihatah who-INSTR-be-2SG beaten-NOM-M.SG by whom have you (not he, not we, not she etc.) been beaten (9)b tenâsmi sopacaram uktah 3SG-INSTR-be-1SG respectfully said-NOM-M.SG I (not you, not they) have been told this by him = he told me The copula later helped emphasizing stativity (to prevent another kind of ambiguity, event or state) or simply introducing stylistic variation according to Breunis and to Bloch. But from the moment this alternation, originally a stylistic variant, became more expressive of state or "condition", it remained no longer a stylistic variation, and it became the grammatical expression of perfect or resulting state of an event Breunis (1990: 141). At the same time, the simple form restricted its previously "open" meaning to the expression of anteriority (event: preterit). If we agree with [START_REF] Bybee | The Grammaticalization of zero[END_REF] we may analyse this as an emergence of a zero mark with the meaning of anterior, whereas previously the unmarked form had unspecified or open meaning in the whole perfect system 6 . .

Obviously when the former participle is used as a predicate for representing events, even if the agent remains in an oblique case as in passive sentences, the emphasis is more on the process (source oriented) than on its result and the whole statement gets more and more perceived as active and no longer passive. Besides, it was the only expression for past processes. This is expressed by Nespital (1986: 145) as the emergence of a "Neuer Proto-aktiv Satz", which he observes since the pali stage in Milindapanha.

2.2.Morpho-syntactic restructuring

This active transformation was implemented differently in the East and in the West, and here lies the today opposition in the syntactic alignments. In the East, the active renewal was radical, and the pre-ergative structure was de-ergatived so to speak, between the 14 th and 16 th century. [START_REF] Chatterji | The Evolution of Bengali Language[END_REF] calls the process an active conversion, comparing the form, not the meaning, with the medieval structures (6). The agent, in conformity with the linguistic perception (active process) became expressed in the nominative or unmarked case, whereas new personal endings were affixed to the verbal form. What is interesting is that these affixes are still now clearly distinct from the older endings of the present.

(10) âmi boi.Ta por.l.âm 1SG book-DEF read-PST-1SG

I read the book (present âmi por-i) tui por.l.i: 2-nonH read-2nonH, "you read" (present tui por-is) tumi por.l.e 2 read-2 "you read" (present tumi por-o) The transformation then ends up providing a nominative alignment with standard personal predicates with a standard past marker -l-, as rightly today analysed. But its origin denotes no trace of anteriority marking, since this suffix is widely found throughout the nominal class, mostly with the meaning of a "diminutive" affix (rangilâ "coloured" from rang "colour", kanTilâ "thorny", from kânT "thorn"). It also behaved more or less like the so-called "enlargement" suffix -k-extensively added to nominal bases in late OIA. 7 The same transformation happened in Bhojpuri and to a lesser degree in Awadhi: "when the original passive construction was lost in Bhojpuri as in other Magadhean dialects, the Prakritic constructions with the passive participle became a regular verb in Bhojpuri, and it began to be conjugated by adding personal terminations which came from the radical tense as well as from the s/h future" (Tiwari 1966: 171).

Western languages on the contrary, instead of re-aligning the morpho-syntactic pattern on the nominative model fit for action processes, reinforced the oblique marking of the agent by using a postposition, either specific (HU) or not (Marathi), and so developed the full fledged ergative structure for the perfect system (anterior, present perfect, pluperfect). 8 Only some modern IA languages retain the old oblique agent (Jaisalmeri and Western Rajasthani 6 The zero mark refers to a specific meaning, such as general present in English (do) as opposed to the progressive marked present (am doing), whereas the unmarked form refers to an open meaning such as the French present, which has both meanings (open meaning). 7 That is why -l-is observable in other tenses in Bhojpuri (present, past) and Pahari (future, past). Although Tiwari traces the origin of the future/present -l-in lag "touch", it is generally considered as a diminutive (laghutâvacak: Chatak), cf. Tessitori (l < ll < ill). Tiwari relates the past -l-to the one in tonaïla (< tunda + illa) "pot bellied man". 8 In the various moods too. dialects). But this recent re-characterization of the old instrumental does not make the structure more passive and its "perception" as an active structure shows in the various subject properties attached to the marked agent, who has now most of the control properties (reflexivation, conjunctive participle), but still never controls agreement, even with a marked patient. 9 Bubenik & Paranjape (116-7) suggests that the placing of the agent in the first position in late MIA correlates with the linguistic perception of the oblique noun as a semantic subject. Breunis (1990) in his chapter on word order (chapter 6) suggests that the fronting of the agent is earlier, which is confirmed by many of the examples from [START_REF] Bloch | The Formation of the Marathi Language[END_REF]. The fronting of the marked agent amounts to treat it as a topic, which is a first step on the way to shifting it to the subject status.

We can then summarize this general evolution by saying that Eastern languages have simply gone one step further than Western ones in the same logic, they have fully endowed the agent with subject properties, whereas the Western languages have gone a step further in the ergative pattern but still have endowed the agent only with the semantic, syntactic and to a certain extent pragmatic properties. Bengali is a good example of the full cycle from a nominative language (Sanskrit) to a pre-ergative one (Old Bengali) and back to a nominative one, and Hindi/Urdu is a good example of the first part of the cycle (from a nominative to an ergative one. This cyclic evolution has of course been gradual and is still in process, and the occurrence of personal endings in Marathi at the second person, as well as the use of nominative agents for first and second person in Marathi and Panjabi, 10 may be interpreted as a sign of a transitional stage towards a nominative patterning. For instance, (11a) in Marathi and (11b) in Panjabi exactly structured as (1a) in Hindi/Urdu, show a marked agent, only gender-number agreement with the patient on the participle-like predicate. But (12a) in the second person shows, after the gender-number agreement with the patient, a -s which is a personal ending referring to the agent, and (12b) in Panjabi shows unmarked agent at the first and second person. ( 11 This person split (1 and 2 avoiding ergative marking) is also well attested in split ergativity across languages, although not frequently at the same time as the aspect split. In the Indo-Aryan case (Marathi, Panjabi), rather than relating this to a hierarchy of saliency, with first 9 In which case a default agreement occurs (M.SG in Hindi/Urdu and Panjabi, N.SG in Marathi). 10 The Marathi past ending always differs from the present one (-s also) since in the present, -s follows a vowel which varies according to the subject gender (tu topi kâDh-t-os : « you-M.SG take off the hat », tu topi kâDh-tes : « you-F.SG take off the hat »), whereas in the anterior it follows a vowel referring to the patient (tu topi kaDh-l-i-s « you-M.SG took off the hat »). In the first person, Marathi like Panjabi in both first and second person, has unmarked agent and agreement with the unmarked patient.

persons always the syntactic pivot of the sentence, we may hypothesize that it marks a transitional phase in the de-ergativation cycle?

A similar shift in other Indo-European languages: from passive to active?

A very similar evolution has been studied by Kurylowicz for Persian (1953) and French (1931, 1965), and by [START_REF] Benveniste | La construction passive du parfait transitif[END_REF][START_REF] Benveniste | La construction passive du parfait transitif[END_REF][START_REF] Benveniste | Les transformations des catégories grammaticales[END_REF], also for Persian and French. Like late Sanskrit, late Latin substituted to the old synthetic perfect a new periphrastic expression with the agent in the dative case (dativus auctoris), the patient unmarked and a passive past participle as a predicate (often followed by the copula). 11 The forms in Persian ( 14) are exactly similar to (3) in Sanskrit, including the lexical bases, except that the instrumental is not an option for the agent, always in the genitive case, and the Latin ( 15) is similar morpho-syntactically:

(13)a. Whereas Persian later undergone the same evolution as Bengali, shifting the agent to the nominative case while adding new personal endings to the old participle (14b), Latin realised the same syntactic and semantic shift by using the "have" auxiliary, lacking in IA (15b): I have done this (15b) is the structure now inherited by the modern Romance languages, such as French, with "have" verb conjugated in the present as an auxiliary for the present perfect and agreeing with the subject, before the participle, the latter still agreeing with the object in some cases:

(14)c. j'ai fait (cela), tu as fait (cela), nous avons fait I have-1SG (this) 2SG have-2SG done (this), 1PL have-1PL done 12 Kurylowicz as most of the then scholars admitted the "passive" origin of the modern perfects derived from the passive past participle: "In the evolution that we consider, the decisive step is in the replacement of the dative + esse [be] + nominative by nominative + habere [have] + 11 What is generally meant by perfect in the traditional grammar of Latin is the-(v)i form, usually translated by either as an anterior (amavi "I loved") or a present perfect ("I have loved"). The difference in both IA and Romance languages is that the old synthetic form was maintained and is still living as the simple past or aorist or definite past (various terminologies according to languages and centuries), only written in contemporary French but very common in spoken Spanish and Italian. 12 With a preposed object: les choses que j'ai faites, je les ai faites (the things-F.PL which I have done-F.PL, them I have done-F.PL).

accusative. The passive construction has been transformed into an active one" (1931: 107). This is also the implicit assumption of Chatterji and Tiwari when they interpret the periphrastic renewal (nominative pattern) as an active conversion. Benveniste on the contrary argued for a "possessive" meaning of the perfect, aiming at both the ancient periphrastic expression and the present meaning ("le sens possessif du parfait"). One of his argument is casual: the genitive case used to represent the agent of the Latin or Persian perfect is also the possessive marker in both languages, distinct from the case used in Old Persian for the agent of passive verbs (hacâma in Old Persian, a me in Latin). 13 For instance mihi filius est (I-dat son-nom-ms is) "I have a son" or mihi pecunia est (I-dat money-nom-fs is) "I have money" is structured in the same way as "I did this" in (15a) and has been renewed in the same way as (14b) by the use of "have" verb, nominative subject and accusative object: ego pecuniam habeo (I-nom money-acc-fs have-1s). His other argument for the possessive reading is that the auxiliary "have" is also the stative verb which forms possessive statements: the older dative "possessor" has simply been transformed into a nominative possessor. That obviously the casual argument does not really hold for Sanskrit and Prakrits (instrumental is the agent in passive statements, and never expresses a possessor), does not entail that the general hypothesis is wrong. We come back to these problems and to the notions of possession and stativity later (section 4).

The modal future: a similar development

Parallel historical facts

But Kurylowicz's theory of the passive meaning of the old periphrastic passive allows him to grasp a very interesting analogy between perfect and future in the Romance languages. The development of the modern future in Romance languages also stems from a periphrastic renewal of the older synthetic Latine future (amabo "I will love"). This renewal occurred in Late Latin at the same time as the periphrastic perfect and on the same pattern: mihi cantandum est [START_REF] Kurylowicz | The Evolution of Grammatical Categories[END_REF]) parallels mihi factum est, with a dative "subject", a passive verbal adjective or gerund, originally meaning obligation in -nd-(glossed OVA for obligative verbal adjective), agreeing with the patient if any (16a) or else in the neuter -um (16b).

(15)a. mihi virtus colenda est mihi id faciendum est I-DAT virtue-F.SG cultivate-OVA-F.SG be-3SG I-DAT this-N.SG do-OVA-N.SG be-3SG

I shall/have to cultivate virtue I shall/have to do this (15)b. Carthago delenda est Carthago-F.SG delete-OVA-F.SG be-3SG Carthago is to be destroyed Carthago should/will be destroyed, (we) shall destroy Carthago The Indo-Aryan data developed a strikingly similar structure, since in Asoka's times the obligative future (then the future) is expressed by an obligative passive participle in -tavya agreeing with the patient. ( 16) is the second part of example (4), again with a Western expression in Girnar (16a) and an Eastern expression in Jaugada (16b), identically patterned:

( 

Transformation of the 'passive' structure into an active one: have auxiliary

The last part of the story is exactly similar to what happened with the perfect: this passive (according to Kurylowicz) structure got transformed into an active one by shifting the dative/instrumental agent to the nominative, the patient to the accusative and using the auxiliary "have" (habere) after the infinitive:

(17)a. ego cantare habeo I-NOM sing-INF have-1SG

I shall sing I have to do that/I will do that (17)b. ego id facere habeo I-NOM this-ACC-N.SG do-INF have-1SG I shall do it And the modern future in romance languages, although written today in one word, is clearly derived from the 'have' construction since the personal endings paradigm of future in French for instance is the present of "have" verb, comparable to the 'have' perfect in (14c):

(18) je chanter-ai, tu chanter-as, nous ferons I sing-have-1SG, you sing-have-2SG, we sing-have-1PL I will sing, you will sing, we will sing

Transforming the structure without 'have' auxiliary

The old system of ( 16) prevailed in the Magadhean languages up to around the 16 th century. Transitive as well as intransitive have for their future, the old verbal adjective of obligation (OVA) in -tavya > -abba > ab > b) with an instrumental agent. 14 Ram and Sita will find happiness

The later evolution of these -b-futures has been similar to the evolution of perfects in the East: personal endings were added to the participle, similar to the perfect endings and distinct from the present ones in Bengali, in parallel with the shifting to a nominative structure: (21) âmi boiTâ porbâm, tu porbi, tumi porbe, etc. 1s book-DEF read-b-1SG, 2nonH read-b-2nonH, 2 read-b-2 I will read the book, you will read, etc. In Bhojpuri too and Awadhi, Saxena (1937: 261) notes that the -b-future was generalized in ancient NIA in the region, before the re-introduction in Western Awadhi of the sigmatic forms for the 1 st and 2 nd persons.15 

Retaining the structure: Modalities and the non-nominative pattern

This striking parallel in Bengali between past and future shows, as already argued by Kurylowicz, that perfect and future share a common evolution which suits a common meaning. Benveniste opposed this view and denied any relation at the semantic level between future and the obligative participle. 16 But many various languages show a possible grammaticization of an obligative form in the meaning of a future [START_REF] Heine | Auxiliaries. Cognitive Forces and Grammaticalisation[END_REF]), an the IA data is a particularly clear evidence of such a development. [START_REF] Kurylowicz | The Evolution of Grammatical Categories[END_REF] maintained that both future and perfect evolved on similar lines from passive nominal structures (X been done, X to be done) to auxiliated active structures with "have" (have this done, have this to do) because they are both views over the process from the present utterance time: "future and past structures are originally forms of present, they are related to the time and situation of utterance. They do not express action, but the need or intention to act, and the present result of an action which has already been accomplished".

The link between the old nominal obligative structure and perfect is confirmed by the Marathi data in a different way, since Marathi does not exhibit a future of the Bengali type. But it maintained the old obligative verbal adjective, in modal structures closer to the original than in the Magadhean modern languages : potential and obligation not only maintain theâv/av-morphology inherited from the -tavya verbal adjective, they also maintain the old syntax with an instrumental subject (Joshi 1900: 468) and they also allow interesting case alternations. Bloch already noted that the "the use of these forms is similar to that of the form for past " (1935: 264), on the basis of the obligative statement borrowed from Joshi, where the "logical subject" ahmî is instrumental and karâveN agrees in the neuter-singular:

( In contemporary Marathi, although according to Pandharipande, ergative (agent) case can also have the optative meaning ("he may go home" is the translation she gives for tyâne gharî dzâwe), according to other modern writers there is now a difference in meaning, the ergative pattern being obligative while the nominative one is "optative" (Wali 2004: 31), "may he come home". The next series in (23) illustrates the potential modality, also derived from the obligative verbal adjective, also allowing casual alternation. The alternation here is between two oblique forms within the same syntactic pattern, the dative and the "instrumental", according to Joshi and Pandharipande, who however glosses the same ne as agent in obligative statements (1997: 438, 434) Standard Hindi/Urdu have not at all retained the structure, using instead an auxiliary (a nominal form of jânâ "go", ga-GenderNumber) and similarly other Western languages have a future in -l-(from lag, "attain", "reach") ( 24) kar-e-gâ: do-3s-go.ms "(he) will go"

What is remarkable in the Marathi maintaining of the structure for modal meanings is the fact that neN, whether identically glossed or not, a single morphological unit with a single origin (see infra), alternates with both dative and nominative markers for the main participant. Examples ( 22) and ( 23) are a further argument to regard the modal system originated from the -tavya verbal adjective as a parallel structure to the perfect pre-ergative or ergative structures, a fact clearly captured by Bloch in the early 20 th century (1920). At the same time, they are a further argument, too, to consider the ergative IA pattern as part of a larger way of mapping non action, instead of viewing it as an aspectual split.

Place of these evolutions within the global economy of the NIA system

Parallel patterns for what is aimed at, accomplished, experienced

Benveniste, who also claimed that future and past do not represent tense but "views on time from the present" (1965), is however only concerned with perfect since he does not recognize any deep or interesting analogy with the development of futures. But he clearly states that the "so-called" passive structure, in fact according to him a possessive structure with its dativus auctoris, is a stative one. Instead of viewing the "avoir/have" conversion as a converting device from passive to active (as did Kurylowicz), he regards it as a device for "inversion". The idea stems from the possessive statement which in Latin patterns as the periphrastic future (table 3): "avoir is nothing else than a "be-to" inverted (mihi est pecunia = habeo pecuniam 18 ). The nominative is not an agent but the localizer of a state, 19 seemingly transitive but in reality intransitive and stative". Similarly when used as auxiliaries as in the perfect "I have done" (Benveniste 1960: 197).

The above formulation makes the expression of perfect one among other stative predications of localization. Viewed under this light, the term of "possessive" applied to 18 Litt. to-me is fortune(nom-fsg) = I have fortune(acc-fsg). 19 In French, "un siège d'état". perfect is understandable, providing we do not over-semanticize it and read it as a label for "have" sentences in general, most of them are indeed stative and only some possessive. The 'be' to 'have' "inversion" which transforms a dative alignment into a nominative alignment retains the static feature and the semantic role of localizer of the first nominal (in the dative or nominative). Adapted to the ergative IA pattern which is the continuation of the 'be' structure, the periphrastic perfect commented by Benveniste as a stative, not passive structure, such an analysis suggests that the ne sentences too are localizing predications, 20 similar to (25a) for obligative predicates with verb "be", perception or cognitive predicates (25b) and more generally experiential statements, transitive and intransitive (25c):

(25)a. mujhko jûte kharîdne hoNge I-DAT shoe-M.PL buy-INF-M.PL be-FUT-M.PL I will have to buy shoes (25)b. mujhko choTe choTe ghar dîkh rahe the I-DAT small-M.PL small-M.PL house-M.PL appear PROG-M.PL be-PAST-M.PL I saw (was discovering) houses (25)c. mujhko Thand hai I-DAT cold-F.SG be-PRS-3.SG I am cold (French "j'ai froid") The series (25) morpho-syntactically patterns exactly as (4a) and ( 6), even when the predicate is a single participant one since in HU such predicates usually consist in verbonominal expression (NV) and the verb agrees with N. Similarly, possessive statements (with locatives) present a stative verb, mostly "be", which agrees with the object possessed, and the possessor, although the main participant in the first position, is marked (ke pâs "near", meN "in") and does not control agreement. Significantly, the equivalent of type (25) statements in Romance languages involves the verb 'have' more often than in English and Benveniste includes these statements too in his analysis of the "possessive perfect". 

The cognitive scenarios of non-transitive processes

This suggests more affinity with an intransitive model than with a transitive one. If we come back to the aspectual semantics of perfect (emphasis on result), it is a well-known fact since DeLancey (1981), who first associated both ergative and dative experiential statements, that aspectual semantics requires the viewpoint to be associated with the result (goal) and not with the source at the "natural " origin of the process, which is encountered secondarily (hence marked), upstream so to speak. In this logic, the source no longer retains the same relation with the process and its goal: in the standard transitive model, the source is the natural start-point of a process ending on the goal (endpoint), whereas in the ergative pattern the source is outside the predication, which has the goal as its start point. This means that the ergative case is not a simple grammatical marker used to reverse the same trajectory, within 20 More details in Montaut 2004b. the same cognitive scenario. The trajectory itself maps a different cognitive scenario. As Langacker (1999: 35) puts it, ERG encodes an altogether different relation, involving a different perceptive strategy, thus being rather a semantically significant case and "only incidentally associated with grammatical relations " (cf. section 4.3). It only profiles the last part of the clause as "onstage" (the " trajector " and main figure being the patient), in an autonomous way (not dependant on the source), whereas a nominative transitive alignment profiles the full path (the "trajector" and main figure being the agent) and builds the relation as dependant on the source. The ergative pattern is then more like an intransitive structure, corresponding to what Langacker calls a thematic relation ('the ice melted', profiling only the end part of the action chain, whereas 'Bob melted the ice' profiles the whole chain). As a thematic relation, " it enjoys a certain autonomy vis-à-vis the agent and the flow of energy, even for inherently energetic processes", and is thus an "absolute construal" (Langacker 1990 : 245-8). The starting point has conceptual autonomy from the source, a reason why " the path involved is more abstract and of lesser cognitive salience ". Both structures are thus shown to differ deeply, and not only at the morphological level.

The affinity with intransitive patterns is evidenced by Hindi/Urdu examples such as ( 26), where 26b) in the ergative may give particular emphasis to the resulting state (26c) by adding the past participle of "be" to the predicate ('is having been done'), in a quasi equivalent meaning as the intransitive nominative pattern (26a):

(26)a. maiN unse mitratâ banâe hue hûN I-NOM 3PL-with friendship-F.SG make-caus being be-1SG (26)b. maiNne unse mitratâ banâî hai I-ERG 3PL-with friendship-F.SG make-PRF-3F.SG I have made friendship with him (26)c. sîtâ ne aTahârû pahne hue the / sâRî pahnî huî thî Sita ERG earing-M.PL wear-PP been be-M.PL / sari-F.SG wear-PP been be-F.SG Sita was wearing (had put on) earings /a sari" 21 (26)d Sitâ aTahârû pahnî huî (pahne hue) thî Sita-fs earing-mp worn been-fs (worn been-adv) was Sita was wearing earrings Whereas table 4 showed tripartite models, things could then be reformulated in a binary model with the localizer outside the profiled relation, which itself is basically intransitive and mapped into an "absolute construal" (Langacker's terms) into table 5: [agent-ne] patient-nom Verb patient [experiencer-ko] theme-nom Verb theme (possessors: GEN, LOC)

Special aoristic meanings

The fact that the simple past form (calâ, bola), mainly used for narrative puroposes to refer to anterior events, has also aoristic uses in Hindi is linked with its history as a marker of states rather than dynamic processes. In Hindi this form has a wide range of the aoristic meanings, that is, not related to tense or even aspect. Such is the case of the eventual meaning in 21 We may say that "huâ" is not a specific marker for stativity since we also find it with unaccomplished participles, as in vah gâtâ huâ â rahâ thâ (3s singing huâ come PROG PST) "he was coming (while) singing" where it simply marks concomitance. But the relation between resultant state (perfect) and concomitance is well known (Cohen 1992), both marking the link of the process with the situation of reference (set by utterance), either through a relation of inherence (progressive: being in the process) or by a relation of adjacency (perfect: being with or after the process).

hypothetic system, where it may have a future reference (27). But there are also less described uses which point to "evidential" meanings, mainly of the mirative type: when a process is emphasized for its surprising meaning, its saliency rather as a process for itself, some languages have a special form, most of the time derived from the perfect. Hindi/Urdu has the simple past form ( 28 dhûp nikal gaî hai, kal tak kârîgar bhijvâ deNge ? landlord dat say give-subj sun leave go pft, tomorrow till worker send-caus give-fut "Here is the sun, here is the sun (aor) !", hearing this I had suddenly got up. Should I tell the landlord that the sun has come out (pft), (that) he may have the workers sent by tomorrow?"22 (28)c are dekho, karghosh niklâ ! hey look-imper, rabbit leave-aor look at that! (there is) a rabbit coming out ! (Fr 'un lapin qui déboule !') In ( 27) an ( 28) what is emphasized is the sudden awareness of the event in the speaker's mind. Some languages would render this with nominal sentences, for instance French. In (28)b, the fact that the sun has come out is rendered a first time with the expression for sudden "unprocessed" events, when children simply take into account this raw, unintellectual event, but the second occurrence of it, in the perfect, echoes a rational representation of it by the speaker who links it to plans for repairing the roof. The reason why events characterized by their sudden rise in the speaker's consciousness should be expressed by the aorist, why a verbal form which is besides particularly associated with past, can also represent immediate events or states devoid of any temporal depth is the following: if we refer to the schema of aspect-tense representation (first table) in section 2, with the specific feature of preterit (aorist) being its radical disjunction from the time of utterance, we can understand this disjunction as a disjunction also from the whole chain of temporal succession. It does not construct an ordinary predicative relation, in such mirative uses, but rather relates to an already constructed relation given as a block (no intonationnal pause is allowed between subject and verb): a type of predication appropriated to the nominal non-tensed origin of the form. Significantly, the Hindi aorist lacks the inferential meaning which is associated to evidential in languages which express it with a derived perfect, such as Nepali in the area (29, similar meaning as 28a): (29) âhâ ! kasto râmro pokhrî rahecha (Nepali) ah ! what beautiful lake be-inferential perfect "what a beautiful lake" (Clark 244)

Case semantics

Now, if the forms inherited from the -tavya participle may encode the localizer in the dative as well as in the ergative (Marathi data), the alternation makes it dubious that ergative is basically a marker for voluntary controlled action. The volition-control feature is certainly present in a massive majority of ergative statements, but it is probably linked with the semantic class of transitive predicates, rather than with the case marker,23 since transitive basis in HU are generally + volitional or + consciousness/awareness. In contrast, the use of dative refers to lack of conscious awareness, as shown in (30): the ergative/nominative statement only involves conscious awareness rather than a deliberate choice, whereas the dative statement rules it out:

(30)a. *us din maiNne tumse irSyâ kî thî par iskâ bodh nahîn thâ that day I-ERG 2-with jealousy do PPRF but this-of awareness NEG was (30)b. us din mujhe tumse irSyâ huî thî par iskâ bodh nahîn thâ that day I-DAT 2-with jealousy be-PPRF but this-of awareness NEG was that day I felt jealous from you but I was not conscious of it When alternating with nominative case as in Marathi (23a), ergative (glossed either as such or as instrumental by linguists) is obligative, whereas nominative is optative or epistemic (Wali 31), which refers to a "demand" or "wish" from the speaker and not from the subject in the non-first person. Here ergative appears less "volitional" than nominative. In Delhi Hindi (DH), Hindi the use of the ergative marker has developed for obligative statements as (31), supposedly under the influence of Panjabi (ne ergative, nuN dative), competing with the standard Hindi construction in the dative (31b).

(31) DH maiNne jânâ hai I-ERG go-INF is I have to go SH mujhe jânâ hai I-DAT go-INF is While it sometimes conveys a "conscious choice" (Butt 1994) as opposed to the standard dative construction, it has been proved (Bashir 1997) to also convey different meanings varying according to the person of the verb and to the context, including a "prospective, anticipated, injunctive" meaning, which is consistent with the modal nominal pattern of (x). But the very fact that dative and ergative can alternate in patterns like (29) and that closely linked languages have either one or the other case for obligative statements suggests that there is a deep affinity between dative and ergative. For example, Pahari in both its regional variants Garwhwali (29a) and Kumaoni (29b) use only the ergative marker in the "obligative future", expressed by a bare infinitive, where standard Hindi/Urdu use the dative. Garhwali uses na or la, and Kumaoni uses le: 24(32)a. maiNna / maiNla âj barat rakhNa I have to fast today (32)b. maiNle âj barat rakhNa I-ERG today fast keep-INF (32)c. mujhe âj vrat rakhnâ hai I-DAT today fast keep-INF is All these facts of alternation suggest that there is no polar opposition between ne/le and ko/la, the markers for ergative/dative, although in many contexts they convey distinct and even opposed meanings. There are cases even in standard Hindi/Urdu where ergative and dative encode a similarly non agentive (non volitive, non deliberate) 'subject' such as (33), both meaning "I found Sita crying": (33)a maiNne Sitâ ko rote hue pâyâ I-ERG Sita ACC crying-oblq found (33b) mujhko Sitâ rotî huî milî I-DAT Sita-NOM crying FSG was-found

The instrumental use of ne/ni in Marathi (for inanimate cause and instruments), hence the gloss, as well as the interpretation of the ergative structure as passive, with instrumental agent, wrongly represent the case marker as a source, opposed to the dative (goal).But the historical evidence for the origin of both tales a different tale, more in conformity with Benveniste's "possessive" reading and my own analysis as a localizer for stative predication.

Origin of the markers

First of all, it is obvious than the ergative ne/ni can in no way originate from the Sanskrit instrumental -ena, even reinforced: Hindi main may reasonably be assumed to derive from a reinforcing of the classical instrumental form mayâ via *mayena (Chatterji: 744) and shows only a nasal ending vowel, as all forms derived from the Sanskrit -ena. It does not seem to have appeared before the end of 14 th century (Namdev has tâyaneN) and was not generalized then. In the early century Konkan, the n, na, nî form means "to" and similarly ne in Bhili, ne/nai in Rajasthani has both meanings "by" and "to" (Grierson). Today nûN means "to" in Panjabi and ne is the agent marker. The etymology of this obviously single form has been extensively discussed and sometimes associated to nyâya (manner < rule), questioned by [START_REF] Bloch | The Formation of the Marathi Language[END_REF] who does not suggest an alternative. The most convincing etymology is traced by Tessitori (1913;1914: 226-7), according to whom nain, naï, nî, ni, ne is a shortening of kanhaïN found in Old Rajasthani texts. KanhaïN (<Apabramsha kaNNahî) comes from the reconstructed * karNasmin (< Sanskrit karNe), a locative form meaning "aside, near". Trumpp (1872: 401) also gives the original meaning "near" for naï/ne. This meaning, according to Tessitori, "may be understood either in the sense of the locative "Near to" or of the accusative-dative "Towards, to". The second meaning is the origin of the Western marker for goal (Panjabi nûn), and the first one of the ergative markers of the ne type, clearly a locative.

As for le/la, which in Pahari (and modern Nepali) is the agent marker and the instrumental (allomorphs -l, al, lè), 25 it is assumed by most to derive from lagya > lege >laï, le "having come in touch with", "for the sake of", "with the object of" [START_REF] Juyal | Madhya Pahari Bhasha (Garhvali Kumaoni) ka anushilan aur uska hindi se sambandh[END_REF]). We may notice the similar origin for the dative marker lâ (Marathi), la, from lag, (> lâgi, "up to, for the sake of"), according to Turner (Old Marwari lag "up to, until": 26 it is obvious that both locative and dative, although quite distinct now in most IA languages, stem from a common notion of vicinity and adjacency, presented either as dynamic (entity aimed at: dative, goal or patient) or non dynamic (localizer of the process: ergative).

Originally, both ne and la markers are then semantically quite close, and these facts make the IA date even closer to the Latin data.

Conclusion

The above data for perfect and future compared with experiential patterning, do not of course amount to say that ergative statements are presently perceived as states, no more than was the Latin periphrastic perfect once grammaticized as a perfect. No more did Benveniste's "possessive" perfect really meant that perfect was perceived as the possession of a result by an agent. But it shows that a similar logic has restructured all predications that were not actual processes (such as processes aimed at or accomplished, or experienced states) into localizing predications. In NIA, most of the localizing predications with two participants came to be represented as non-nominative statements, a historical development which amounted to split 25 hamanle callo mâr cha [1PL-ERG bird-M.SG strike PRF-M.SG] « we killed the bird »] apnâ hâtel khan banuni [REFL-OBL hand-INSTR food make-PST]"(they) prepared food by their hand" 26 Against Tiwari, who suggests a possible derivation from labhati "acquire, benefit". grammatical subject properties and syntactic, semantic or pragmatic subject properties on two separate entities. 27 Whereas in Romance languages this gap has been overcome by the "have" restructuring, allowing topic, subject and agent to coincide in a grammatical subject, IA languages, lacking a "have" verb, still display a subjectless patterning for most of these predications. 28 Western NIA is in this respect more "conservative" than Eastern NIA, which has differently restructured its modal and perfect statements into a nominative pattern. Given the historical evolutions above mentioned, useless to say that the relation between unmarkedness and core meaning is to be used cautiously: shall we say that in Hindi/Urdu the preterit is the unmarked form, then, anteriority is the basic meaning for tense, because there is no tense-aspect-person mark, as opposed to present for instance, whereas in Bengali, with a similar history of grammaticization upto the 16 th century, perfect was already marked by -land personal endings got added to the form, hence marked more than optative? Still forms are indicative of paths of grammaticization, if not, at least not directly, of the cognitive domains they are supposed to map.

  (a) and (b) have the same meaning and gloss, except for the verb base, causative in (a) and simple transitive in (b), I give them only once: the friendly looking king beloved of gods has (made) engraved this law-edict

  5)a tai rasau hinduâN you protected the Hindus you-obl protected-mp Hindu-mp (5)b hau acchari nâhi I am not a celestial woman I-nom celestial woman neg (5)c hau pai pucchimi … diTThî pia pai sâmuha jantî I-NOM you-OBL ask-PRS-1SG seen-F.SG loved-F.SG you-OBL in-front passing-NOM-F.SG I ask you… Did you see (my) beloved passing in front (of you)? 4

  13)b. man kardam [I-NOM did-1SG], to kardi [2SG-NOM did-2SG], etc. (14)b. ego id habeo factum I-NOM this-N.SG have-ISG done-N.SG

  But the old modal meaning, quite perceptible in Late Sanskrit (19) is gradually lost in NIA and replaced by a temporal meaning of future as shown in Old Bengali (20a-b) or Old Awadhi (20c-d): (19)a. tribhir yâtavyam three-INSTR go-OVA-NOM-N.SG the three have to go (19)b. na kSeptavyâ brahma-vâdino na câvamânyâh neg neglect-OVA-NOM-M.PL Brahman-knower-M.PL neg contempt-OVA-NOM-M.PL (you) should not neglect nor contempt those who know the Vedic word (20)a. maï dibi piricha (SK mayâ dattavyâ pRcchâ) I-INSTR give-b-F.PL question-F.PL 'I will ask questions" (Chatterji) (20)b. Thakiba, khaïba maï stay-b-∅ eat-b-∅ I-INSTR I will stay, eat (20)c. ghar kaise paithaba maï house how enter-b-∅ I-INSTR how shall I enter? (20)d. sukh lahab râm vaidehî bliss get-b-∅ Ram Vaidehi

  22)a ahmî kây karâveN I-INSTR what do-âv-N.SG what should I do? The pair in (23), from Joshi (1900), with obligative meaning, shows the "active conversion" of this "passive" structure in a way very similar to what happened in Bengali. (22b) is a quasi ergative alignment and neN marker although the verb is intransitive, agreeing in the neuter whereas (22c), still competing in the 19 th century, shows a nominative alignment with a verb agreeing with its nominative subject: 17 (22)b. tyâneN ghariN yâveN 3M.SG-ERG home-LOC come-OBLIG-N.SG he should come home (22)c. to ghariN yâva 3M.SG-NOM home-LOC come-OBLIG-3M.SG he should /may he come home

  1:

	Tense Aspect	Tense Aspect	Mood	Mood	Tense
	-accomplished	+ accomplished			
		calâ preterit	caltâ counterfactual	calûn subjunctive calûngâ future
		went	would go		
	caltâ hai present	calâ hai perfect			
	goes	has gone			
	(cal rahâ hai prog)				
	is going				
	caltâ thâ imperfect	calâ tha pluperfect			
	walked	had gone			
	(cal rahâ thâ prog)				
	was going				

  Table2summarizes the analogies of the periphrastic perfects (I did / have done this) in the three ancient languages, which still accounts for the present state of HU:

		mana kardam		
		I-GEN done-N.SG		I have done [that]
	(14)a. mihi id	factum	
		I-DAT this-NOM-N.SG done-N.SG	I have done that
		marked agent	unmarked patient	Verb-Patient
		N1-oblique	N2-nom		verbal adjectif N2
	OIA	mayâ	tat		kRtam
	OPer	manâ	tya		krtam
	Latin	mihi	id		factum
	NIA (W)	S-ergative	O-absolutive		Verb-OD
		maiNne	yah		kiyâ

  Table 4 summarizes the analogies between the various types of predications of localization:

	OIA	agent-INSTR	patient-NOM	verbal.adjective patient
		mayâ	tat	kRtam/ kartavyam
	Latin	mihi	id	factum /faciendum
	NIA (W) agent-ne	patient-NOM	Verb patient
		maiNne	yah	kiyâ
		experiencer-ko	theme-NOM	Verb theme
		mujhe	yah	dîkhâ

Grierson is the author of the Linguistic Survey of India(11 vol.), which is still a reference. The work represents the first attempt to group the Munda and Mon-Khmer languages as a distinct family (still called Austric or Austro-Asiatic) just after Dravidian languages had been separated as the second distinct Indian family, the first one being the Indo-Aryan family, identified right after the famous discovery by William Jones in 1786 that Sanskrit and Latin-Greek were sister languages. The first scholar who gave a scientific and wide description of the Indo-European family was Franz Bopp. For the description of the scientific and ideological context of these elaborations and their far reaching consequences in language classification, see A.Montaut 

2 His description, also based on a few phonetic features, like the alternation s/sh, supposedly a radical difference between both circles, was in conformity with the then theory of the settlement of the Aryan tribes in India, said to have come from the North-West in "concentric waves". The original, more ancient settlers occupied the nucleus around which circled those arrived later. Such a theory was no longer in fashion when the Linguistic

from Kâlidâsa's Vikramorvasiya, where the pronominal subject is in the nominative (hau <aham) whereas in the past it is in the oblique (pai < ?? âtman??) already used as a syncretic marker for several oblique cases)

Which is now a definite shift, with associated syntactic behaviour: what is perceived as a "subject", the agent, has now all the syntactic properties of a subject particularly the control of co-reference with reflexive, conjunctive participle, etc. (semantic, reference properties in Keenan 1976). See infr.

"This difference in the casual form shows of the pronoun manâ on one hand, hacâma on the other hand, shows that the perfect must be interpreted as a category in its own right, altogether distinct from passive, it is an active perfect with possessive expression". (PLG1 179-80).

The -tavya form is still present in some Hindi tatsam words, with its modal meaning, usually as nouns (kartavya "what has to be done, duty").

The sigmatic Sanskrit future (Sy.ati > -s-> -h) was retained in some Western languages like Western Rajasthani, but also in Awadhi at certain persons.

According to him, habere in Late Latin future was only used in the past, with passive infinitive, to express a predictive meaning, specially in the Christian predication; the meaning "have to" could in no way produce a future meaning and was never confused, and still today is never.

Significantly, as in the past, the verb adds a -s personal ending for the second person.

From Naukar kî kamîz(Shukla, 1997) 

Ergative predicates like maiNne dekhâ "I saw" (aside with "I looked"), maiNna pâyâ "I found", maiNne mahasûs kiyâ "I felt" make it clear that ergativity in Hindi is not always associated with volitionality and control.

Both languages are classified as belonging to the PahâRî Madhy BhâSâ, Garhwali probably more influenced by Hindi since the traditional ergative marker la/le tends to commute with na in urban places. The obligative future (bhaviSyat kâl) is considered by[START_REF] Juyal | Madhya Pahari Bhasha (Garhvali Kumaoni) ka anushilan aur uska hindi se sambandh[END_REF] as passive in meaning karNîy arth).

« Coding properties » in Li's (1976) terms (case marking, agreement), vs syntactic (control), semantic (agentivity, animacy) and pragmatic (topic) properties.

For a discussion of « subjectless », see[START_REF] Kibrik | Beyond Subject and Object: towards a Comprehensive Relational Typology[END_REF], and for a view of Hindi as a subjectless language according to these lines seeMontaut 2004b.