This is false the nominative form exists in basque aslo the language IE have lost their declination ergative by their simplification (pidgin;Why? Because it can be considered the nominative form of language IE as the simplified form of the ergatif in the employment of the transitive, but in this case makes the essential auxiliary by its form active or inactive ).
In linguistics, the absolutif is a present case in the languages ergatives, or he is opposed to the case ergatif.
The whole "Indo-European languages formed through pigdinization" is obviously false. All pidgin and creole languages have an extremely simplified grammar. If one now assumes that Proto-Indo-European (or the individual branches of Indo-European) were the result of pidginization, then you must assume that the parent language was more complex. Considering that virtually all of "old" Indo-European languages (ie, Latin, Greek, Avestan, Sanskrit, Hittite, but also for example Gaulish, Celtiberian) and even some modern languages (Lithuanian for example) have a very complex grammar. If now you were to claim that Proto-Indo-European was a pidgin or creole, the consequence is that it was simplified from something else, more complex (more complex than eight noun cases, three numbers, etc.) which is something that is utterly nonsensical in my opinion.
Think about it: if you assume that the ergative case was lost in Indo-European, that would mean that this happened (independently?) in Latin, Sanskrit and Greek, which means that Proto-Indo-European would have been even more complex, and that seems to me entirely superfluous to claim, unless you have the foregone conclusion that Indo-European must have been more complex because you want to connect it to Basque (which, to me, seems to be your core point).
Linguist i am not therefore I prefer to let speak the specialists confirmed in latin and basque: Videgain, Michalena, Etxamendy ... therefore it is them that you may question, I am tired of this pointless debate without end and in loss of time, I do not think that it is essential not more.
It appears that the Supposed specificities of basque (ergative syntax, nominal prédicat, absence of kind, morphology, etc. ) are the caractéristiques of the indo-européen of before the hypothétique séparation groups, and whose aspects archaïques begin at se révéler (Martinet, Vaillant, Laroche, C. Tcheckoff). Finally, the lexical stock irréductible of Euskera - if this means without common roots - do we is not appeared at this day
http://rokus01.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/etchamendy.pdf
I'm not going to commend on that, because my French isn't that good (is there an English language version available?). I have to say though, what makes me raise an eyebrow is that the first thing the guy does is boast that he has a doctoral title (I don't want to transgress on him here) - but it doesn't strik me as a sign of professionalism that you have to go and boast about that.
By the way, I would recommend you the etymological dictionary of Basque by the late linguist Larry Trask. To me it is clear that:
- the (core) vocabulary of Basque shows no sign whatsoever of a connection with the Indo-European languages. Borrowings from Indo-European languages do exist (Latin and Romance languages, in particular, but also Celtic), but this is a relatively recent thing.
- the grammar of Basque (an agglutinative, ergative-absolutive language) is very dissimilar to that reconstructed for Proto-Indo-European (a fusional, nominative-accusative language, notably also with three different numbers - singular, dual and plural - the dual which I might add, is non-existent in Basque!)
- Therefore, it is clear that Basque and Proto-Indo-European are not closely related with each other, and the idea that Proto-Indo-European was simplified from another language makes no sense if it in itself was so complex.
Also, no offense, I do sense that we are not getting each others point because of your deficit in English skills... (or my deficit in French skills) if that is the case (again, no offense), I would think it would be the best thing to leave it as is, and agree to disagree on the matter.