Re: Syntactic differences within parts of speech

>Nice start, Chris!  I've saved a copy of that page so I can
>pinch your list should I ever want it.
>
>I notice you have both 'throw' and 'hit' as VCs.  It might
>be worth noting that most Australian languages split the
>idea of hitting or striking into two distinct verbs (or VCs):
>
>1.  To strike with a weapon held in the hand, or part of the body.
>2.  To strike with a missile.
>
>
>
My verb classifiers can be serialized to a certain extent, much like
some languages allow multiple noun classifiers to classify the same noun
(examples of the general idea are on that page I linked to). To strike
with a missile are both classified with "hit", but if you should wish to
make reference to the throwing part of the action it is possible to say
something like:

kill VC:THROW VC:HIT
"to kill by throwing then hitting something"

I don't think I need a basic classifier for this though. The conpeople
the language is aimed at are not hunter gatherers really... there's a
list of noun classifiers on the same site, and you can see that they
have classifiers for things like "sweet potato" and "seed" which are
used in farming. They are, though, fishermen and whale hunters, so
throwing a harpoon would be a fairly common activity for some members of
their society, but by no means the majority.
 An issue has just occured to me incidentally: some of the classifiers
make reference to the means of violent action:

poke - action with the end of a long object
 this is a rough English translation, and the ngwaalq alternative does
not necessary include the "not violent" component of the English verb
slash - action across with a flat or long object
bash - action with a blunt object
and so on.

The question is, does the ngwaalq verb classifier translated as "poke"
include the requirement that the long thin object used be in the hands?
If it does not, then hitting something with a thrown spear could be
classified as "poke"... much like slash in English does not require that
the object is in hand:

I threw a blade and slashed him across the face

This is perfectly good English to me, although admittedly I would assume
that the slashing object was in the hand unless something implied otherwise.
 Perhaps you can say things like:

kill VC:THROW VC:SLASH
I threw slashed killed him

kill VC:THROW VC:POKE
I threw poked killed him

and so on. :) I will have to give more thought to the exact semantic
components of some of these verbs.

>That bad, huh?
>
>
>
I'm not sure I'd say that it's *bad* as such... some points just feel
either belaboured or unjustified. But since it's about the only book
I've found devoted to discussing Verb Classifiers, it has the benefit of
being the only choice out there. :)