trustme.bro/r/…
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim
All ergative languages exhibit split-ergative characteristics
the verdict
REFUTED
the evidence says no
refutedsupported
the weight of evidence
0 sources for · 1 against
AS REPORTEDno primary record reached; this is what the reporting says

Reference literature establishes that ergative characteristics vary across languages and do not consistently exhibit split-ergative properties universally.

Evidence against · 1
2017 · cited by 0
... Characteristics. Languages with ergative systems are said to exhibit properties and constructions that are ... split ergativity, in which the ergative pattern is lost in certain contexts, often in non- perfective aspects or in ... This volume offers theoretical and descriptive perspectives on the issues pertaining to ergativity, a grammatical patterning whereby direct objects are in some way treated like intransitive subjects, to the exclusion of transitive subjects. This pattern differs markedly from nominative/accusative marking whereby transitive and intransitive subjects are treated as one grammatical class, to the exclusion of direct objects. While ergativity is sometimes referred to as a typological characteristic of languages, research on the phenomenon has shown that languages do not fall clearly into one category or the other and that ergative characteristics are not consistent across languages. Chapters in this volume look at approaches to ergativity within generative, typological, and functional paradigms
See more details
The analysis

rails:sufficiency:refuted:single_source:for=0+0p:against=1+0p | v55:sufficiency

Everything we examined (1)
This check searched the claim as stated. It did not run a separate search for evidence against it.
  1. The Oxford Handbook of Ergativityreferenceno side taken
This receipt carries no identity, shared or not. Sharing publishes your connection to it, not your data.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
trust me, bro: win the argument, pass the class, survive peer review.
This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work · Dispute this receipt