Aspect conditions ergative split systems in natural languages.

the verdict

SUPPORTED

the evidence backs this

Recorded sources

3 sources for · 0 against

Counts group repeated records of the same source within each side. They do not measure evidence strength or source independence.

Is it true that aspect conditions ergative split systems in natural languages?

Yes. Aspect conditions ergative split systems in natural languages, a well-documented typological pattern where case-marking alignment shifts based on tense, aspect, or mood.

Verdict: SUPPORTED · 3 sources for, 0 against · Last checked 4 Aug 2026

The analysis

The claim is a specific, empirically verifiable linguistic proposition regarding the conditioning of split ergativity. Multiple papers (5, 10, 11) provide direct linguistic evidence from various language families showing that aspect or tense-aspect categories condition ergative splits. There are no papers refuting the claim, making the balance overwhelmingly supported.

Evidence for · 3

Nominative-absolutive

2010

Get citation

Gildea, S. & Alves, F. C. (2010). Nominative-absolutive. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.89.07gil

See more details

More for · 2

Light Verbs and Split Ergativity in the Western Cholan Languages

2006

Get citation

Montgomery-Anderson, B. (2006). Light Verbs and Split Ergativity in the Western Cholan Languages. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.17161/KWPL.1808.1228

Tense-aspect conditioned agent marking in Kanakanavu, an Austronesian language of Taiwan

2023

Get citation

Cheng, Y. (2023). Tense-aspect conditioned agent marking in Kanakanavu, an Austronesian language of Taiwan. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2022-0234

Related receipts

Is it true that all ergative languages exhibit split-ergative characteristics? REFUTED related question, same topic
Is it true that black holes can be split into multiple smaller black holes under specific theoretical conditions? SUPPORTED related question, same topic

What does the evidence say?

Receipt History

first checked04 Aug 2026

judged → SUPPORTED · 8204 Aug 2026

Anyone with this link can read the claim and its public receipt, including any personal information in that text. Open permanent receipt.

Check your own claim

Challenge the receipt

I have a source that contradicts this verdict I have a source that supports it No source: request a receipt review Requests are recorded for review. This does not start an automatic check or guarantee a response time.

See the evidence timeline

Citation formatting by citeproc-js (Frank Bennett) and the Citation Style Language project. Source and licenses.

This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work