Re: THEORY: transitivity

> Hello all.
>=20
> I've been thinking about making a lang which distinguishes
> between zero-transitive, intransitive, transitive and=20
> ditransitive (is that the English term?) verbs in that
> the conjugation would be different in each form.
> (And possibly also distinguish between verbs that
> don't have an agent, eg. "I sleep" and verbs that do.)
Aroven has t0, t1, t2, t3, and t-1 semantic words -- intransitive,
transitive, ditransitive, "tri-transitive" if you will, and the last class
I don't know an English name for -- use it to say that it is raining outsid=
e;
it's not "the outside is raining" it is "[it] rains the outside (acc.)".
But isn't "I" the agent in "I sleep"?


> 0. (It) rains   [no S or O]
> 1. I sleep    [only S]
> 2. I eat (food)    [S and O]
> 3. I give (it to you)    [1 S and 2 Os]
Mmm-hmm.  Except how do you say that it is raining in London in particular
(this "in" should, again, not be taken too literally)?  Aroven uses the
accusative, a.k.a. first object.


> The question is if transitive verbs should be conjugated
> as intransitive if they don't have an object.
You mean if the object isn't stated?  In Aroven a verb is assumed to have
its full complement of objects, whether they are listed or not.  For instan=
ce,
it is implicit in the statement "it is raining" that it is raining *somewhe=
re*,
in this case assumedly right outside.



> Alt. 1:
> Na mrine. - I eat.
> Na mrine nando. - I eat food.
>=20
> or
>=20
> Alt. 2:
> Na mriny. - I eat.
> Na mrine nando. - I eat food.
Again, if you're eating you may assume that there is a patient, that is,
whatever it is being eaten, whether you state it or not.  Changing the verb
conjugation would just be a way of making sure the recipient of your statem=
ent
listens for an object.  Marking a verb for intransitive, transitive, etc.
regardless of whether the objects are stated explicitly or not might be use=
ful
(though Aroven does not do this), as it would remind the listener of the cl=
ass
of the particular verb, if you feel this is important.



> Perhaps this is just some kind of object agreement on
> the verb:
> "-y" =3D hey, there are no objects!
> "-e" =3D listen up, there's an object as well.
> "-u" =3D look out, two objects coming your way!
> "-i" =3D what? Not even a subject?
This would serve to make the listener's job a little simpler.  Watch out,
though: often the speaker may not know just how many objects he/she wishes
to list (e.g. "I gave a speech yesterday... to some college students.").


> This might be really fun!
Could be!  Interested to see what kind of system you end up with.

Josh

        _/_/      _/_/  _/_/_/_/   Joshua Shinavier            =20
         _/        _/  _/         Loorenstrasse 74, Zimmer B321=20
        _/        _/  _/_/_/_/   CH-8053 Z=FCrich              =20
 _/    _/  _/    _/        _/   Switzerland                 =20
_/_/_/_/  _/_/_/_/  _/_/_/_/   jshinavi@g26.ethz.ch

Danov=EBn pages: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Crete/5555/ven.htm