Many languages with ergative systems of case or agreement exhibit splits in their alignment. Viewpoint aspect is a common basis for such splits, with perfective aspect often associated with ergative alignment and imperfective with the absence of ergativity (Moravcsik 1978, Silverstein 1976). Recent work has argued that splits arise from properties of the imperfective that disrupt otherwise‐available mechanisms of ergative alignment (Laka 2006, Coon 2013a). This article argues rather that the perfective can be a source of ergative case, and specifically that ergative alignment in Hindi‐Urdu arises from the intersection of two different ways of expressing perfective aspect, each attested independently in other languages: the first is the use of oblique case to mark perfect or perfective subjects, while the second is a morphosyntactic sensitivity to transitivity, a hallmark of auxiliary selection in Germanic and Romance languages. The result is a more unified view of the morphosyntax of perfective aspect, though at the cost of a nonunified account of aspectually split ergativity.

中文翻译：

---

作为完美斜向的

带有大小写或同意的合意系统的许多语言在对齐方式上表现出分歧。观点方面是这种分裂的共同基础，完美方面通常与可调整的对齐方式相关，而在缺乏可确定性的情况下则不完美（Moravcsik 1978，Silverstein 1976）。最近的工作认为，不完美的特性会导致分裂，这些特性会破坏本来可以使用的性格调整机制（Laka 2006，Coon 2013a）。本文认为，完美主义者可以成为来源格，特别是在印地语-乌尔都语中，格律对齐是由两种表达完美方面的方式相交而来的，每种方式都以其他语言独立证明：第一种是使用斜格来标记完美或完美主体，而第二个是对句法句法的可及性敏感性，这是日耳曼和浪漫语言中辅助选择的标志。结果是完善方面的形态语法的更统一的视图，尽管以不统一的方面划分了区分性为代价。