Edited. Thank you!gator Jii, you've put Urdu in the title and you'll appreciate not all Urdu speakers will be able to read the Devnagri script.
Thanks Littlepond. Any more insight into how/when to use it transitively vs intransitively?Yes.
I think it's rather that ergative alignment is optional for siikhnaa. It's not at all uncommon colloquially to hear a perfective siikhnaa without ergative alignment, even with an explicitly specified direct object, and one finds plenty of literary examples on the internet as well, across the ages and across the "divide." Some further examples to add to the one in the OP:I would imagine it's about presence of an object-- i.e. when an object is specifically present, the ergative is triggered. With no object, then it's nom-abs.
think it's rather that ergative alignment is optional for siikhnaa.
Just a fun fact: sikh- does not take ergative also in (standard) Gujarati.Thanks for confirming. I exclusively use siikhnaa ergatively in the past, as that's how it's now hardwired in my brain. No one has suggested khelnaa also offers optional ergative alignment in the past, but yet I still only use it that way, even with no object, as I can't stop-- even though that's wrong, as per that other thread.