Ergative-absolutive alignment

[Bristel]

So I've been reading a bit about ERG/ABS alignment, and I was wondering, how are the receiver and theme roles usually marked in a ditransitive sentence?

Ex: He (A) gives her (R) a book (T).
(Agent, Receiver and Theme)

EDIT: I think that I get it now? Some languages mark the receiver as dative with the patient and theme marked as absolutive, and some mark the theme as dechticaetiative with the patient and receiver marked absolutive?

I -think- I want ergative-dative for my conlang, then... But still, I could use a little clarification on these, perhaps. (yes I saw the Morphosyntactic alignment thread in L&L Museum too)

[Cedh]

One of them will usually be in the absolutive case, and the other may or may not take a different case: Dative for the recipient (e.g. in Lezgian), or secundative/instrumental for the theme (e.g. in West Greenlandic), depending on the ditransitive alignment of the language. Ditransitive alignment is in principle independent of transitive alignment, so both ERG-ABS-DAT and ERG-SEC-ABS are attested, although the former is more common (probably because dative is more common than secundative anyway). Double absolutive probably also exists, but I don't know any specific natlang example.

[Bristel]

One of them will usually be in the absolutive case, and the other may or may not take a different case: Dative for the recipient (e.g. in Lezgian), or secundative/instrumental for the theme (e.g. in West Greenlandic), depending on the ditransitive alignment of the language. Ditransitive alignment is in principle independent of transitive alignment, so both ERG-ABS-DAT and ERG-SEC-ABS are attested, although the former is more common (probably because dative is more common than secundative anyway). Double absolutive probably also exists, but I don't know any specific natlang example.

This is helpful, thank you. I kinda "got it" after figuring out that the Dative and Dechticaetiative wasn't entirely separate from Nominative or Ergative, etc. Still could use some ideas, maybe for a different type of alignment? I know there aren't many, and some are just really rare, such as tripartite.

[So Haleza Grise]

Australian languages that I am familiar with, like Wambaya and Yukulta, have separate dative suffixes. However, the ergative merges with the locative for regular nouns. Indirect objects are also distinguished by not triggering the same agreement on auxiliary/clitic complexes as direct objects.

[vec]

As far as I know, tripartite alignment does not exist for bitransitives, i.e. where the objects of a bitransitive verbs each have distinct cases from a monotransitive verb's complements.