Re: Translation pattern of `to have'?
| From: | Herman Miller <hmiller@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Sunday, February 25, 2001, 2:56 |
|---|
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 22:02:13 -0800, Marcus Smith <smithma@...> wrote:
>If what he glosses as "be-at" ends up being a transitive verb that cannot
>be formed by productive means (eg, no or severely reduced applicatives),
>then assigning "book" to AGT and "I" to PAT is not wrong. It is not unheard
>of for a verb to assign AGT to any subject of a 2-argument verb regardless
>of the event semantics. For example, you can have a verb with a stative
>meaning, that has AGT subject, and a reflexive object. As Daniel Andreasson
>has pointed out to me, these are usually (he might say "always";)) a case a
>lexicalization. This is one way a language could have the pattern Henrik
>proposes.
The Czirehlat equivalent, "nama", is also a transitive verb. I used to use
"agent" and "patient" for the Czirehlat cases, but there are so many
exceptions like this that I've been calling them "subject" and "object"
cases. The "object" often has a locative sense in verbs like this in
Czirehlat, as for instance the verb "xava" (to reside). I could call it an
"accusative-locative" case, but "object" is easier to deal with.
--
languages of Azir------> ---<http://www.io.com/~hmiller/lang/index.html>---
hmiller (Herman Miller) "If all Printers were determin'd not to print any
@io.com email password: thing till they were sure it would offend no body,
\ "Subject: teamouse" / there would be very little printed." -Ben Franklin