Re: Syntactic differences within parts of speech

Hi Chris,

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006, Chris Bates wrote:
>
> >I'm picturing verb classifiers as generalized (or so-called 'light')
> >verbs that convey notions like 'motion', 'change of state', 'reflexive
> >action', 'transitive action', 'direct causation', 'accidental action',
> >'repetitive process/action', etc. Am I in the ballpark, or did you have
> >something different in mind?
> >
> This is indeed the basis of most verb classifier systems (see Australian
> langs). The verbs used in this way have been called auxilliaries (and
> indeed they may be, depending on your definition), but they do not
> usually mark TAM (unlike auxilliaries in more familiar languages), but
> rather classify the action in terms of its general type (causation,
> telicity, how the abs argument is affected, general type of action
> (motion etc)). Here is a list of my verb classifier meanings, only some
> of which have forms associated with them (I'm in the process of filling
> in the list... this is a recent project):
>
> http://www.chrisdb.me.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=48

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.

The distinction seems as fundamental to them as, say, the
distinction in English between "grow" and "create" (to
borrow a recently quoted example where these distinct
categories of action in English  appear to overlap in another
language, eg Portuguese).  That's probably because getting
food using missiles was as everyday to them as growing
beans, potatoes or roses is to us.  So whether your language
ngwaalq needs the distinction will doubtless depend on
concultural factors.


> A book you may want to take a look at is "Verb Classification in
> Australian Languages" by McGregor... much of the book is waffle or
> supposition that I found vaguely uninteresting, ...
That bad, huh?


> ... but several systems that
> fall under the label of "Verb Classification" (as defined by McGregor)
> are described.
Regards,
Yahya

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.6/427 - Release Date: 24/8/06

Reply