Editing Linguistic typology (section)

====Morphosyntactic alignment====
{{main|Morphosyntactic alignment}}
Another common classification distinguishes [[nominative–accusative language|nominative–accusative]] alignment patterns and [[Ergative–absolutive language|ergative–absolutive]] ones. In a language with [[noun case|cases]], the classification depends on whether the subject (S) of an intransitive verb has the same case as the agent (A) or the patient (P) of a transitive verb. If a language has no cases, but the word order is AVP or PVA, then a classification may reflect whether the subject of an intransitive verb appears on the same side as the agent or the patient of the transitive verb. Bickel (2011) has argued that alignment should be seen as a construction-specific property rather than a language-specific property.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web|url=http://www.uni-leipzig.de/~bickel/research/papers/manifesto.pdf|title=What is typology? - a short note|last=Bickel|first=B.|website=www.uni-leipzig.de|language=de|access-date=2017-03-06}}</ref>

Many languages show mixed accusative and ergative behaviour (for example: ergative morphology marking the verb arguments, on top of an accusative syntax). Other languages (called "[[active language]]s") have two types of intransitive verbs—some of them ("active verbs") join the subject in the same case as the agent of a transitive verb, and the rest ("stative verbs") join the subject in the same case as the patient{{Example needed|date=May 2018}}. Yet other languages behave ergatively only in some contexts (this "[[split ergativity]]" is often based on the grammatical person of the arguments or on the tense/aspect of the verb).<ref>Legate, J. A. (2008). Morphological and abstract case. ''Linguistic Inquiry, 39''(1), 55-101. {{doi|10.1162/ling.2008.39.1.55}}</ref> For example, only some verbs in [[Georgian language|Georgian]] behave this way, and, as a rule, only while using the [[perfective]] (aorist).