Re: Copula

---In conlang@yahoogroups.com, Jason Monti <yukatado@...> wrote:
>Why is it that the copula takes two nominatives, rather than a
>nominative and an accusative, even though it seems to me at least to
>be a bivalent verb?
I suspect others have already told you these things, which probably don't add
up to a complete answer, but:

1) Not every language has a copula.
2) Among languages that do have a copula, in some of them the copula is not
a verb.

3) "Bivalent" does not imply "transitive".  Hopper & Thompson's paper and book
on transitivity (for instance "Syntax and Semantics Volume 15: Studies in
Transitivity", Academic Press, 1982, LoC 72-9423, ISBN 0-12-613515-0)
makes "transitivity" a scalar, rather than a binary, characteristic (that is, the
question should be "how transitive is it?" rather than "is it transitive or
intransitive?").  They give a ten-question questionnaire.  Seven of these
questions are binary; one answer is pro-transitive and one is pro-intransitive.
The other three questions -- How potent is the agent?  How affected is the
patient? How individuated is the patient? -- have scalar answers, but one end
is pro-transitive and the other is pro-intransitive.
Hopper & Thompson hypothesized, and proved by researching examples, that
any clause which generated a pro-transitive answer to any one question was
likely to generate a pro-transitive answer to any other question, and
conversely any clause which got a pro-intransitive answer to any one question
was likely to get a pro-intransitive answer to any other question.
"Having two or more participants" was just one of these questions.  They have
examples of bivalent clauses that are intransitive, and of monovalent clauses
that are transitive.
For bivalent intransitive clauses, consider those in which the patient is
unaffected or only partially affected; or those in which the patient is not well-
individuated (for instance not referential); or those in which the agent acted
involuntarily or non-volitionally.
There are several verbs whose clauses usually describe situations that are less
transitive than others; perhaps the action is all internal to the agent, or,
perhaps the action does not affect the patient, or, perhaps the agent is much
more affected than the patient, or the effect on the agent is more "salient" --
more pragmatically important to the speaker -- than the effect on the patient.
In many languages such verbs are "semi-transitive".  Verbs
like "seek", "find", "meet", verbs of perception such as "see" or "hear", verbs of
emotion such as "love" or "fear", verbs of mental judgement such as "trust", all
have the agent more affected than the "patient", and some have all
the "action" taking place internal to the agent.
Other "semi-transitive" verbs include the "ingestive" verbs.  Verbs of
perception are ingestive, but also "swallow", "eat", "drink", "breathe", etc.
are "ingestive".  In these verbs' clauses, the speaker is often (perhaps usually)
emphasizing the effect on the agent rather than that on the patient.  So, for
instance, in "John swallowed poison", the fate of the poison may indeed be
that it disappeared completely (so it was totally affected), what the speaker
cares about and expects the addressee to care about, is that John's life is
now in danger because of the poison he swallowed.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are Hopper & Thompson's ten "parameters":

A. Number of Participants
 * Pro-Transitive: 2 or more
 * Pro-Intransitive: 1 or fewer

B. "Kinesis"
 * Pro-Transitive: Action
 * Pro-Intransitive: Non-Action

C. Telicity (part of "Aktionsart" or "Semantic Aspect")
 * Pro-Transitive: Telic (not-interruptible)
 * Pro-Intransitve: Atelic (interruptible)

D. Punctuality (A different part of Aspect)
 * Pro-Transitive: Punctual
 * Pro-Intransitive: Nonpunctual

E. Volitionality or Control
 * Pro-Transitive: Volitional
 * Pro-Intranstivie: Non-Volitional

F. Polarity
 * Pro-Transitive: Affirmative
 * Pro-Intransitive: Negative

G. Mode/Mood/Modality
 * Pro-Transitive: Realis
 * Pro-Intransitive:  Irrealis

H. Agency
 * Pro-Transitive: "A" high in Agency-Potency
 * Pro-Intransitive: "A" low in Agency-Potency

I. Affectedness of "O"
 * Pro-Transitive:  "O" totally affected
 * Pro-Intransitive: "O" not affected

J. Individuation of "O"
 * Pro-Transitive: "O" highly individuated
 * Pro-Intransitive: "O" nonindividuated.