Re: HELP--Quick Transitivity Questions

En réponse à Jim Grossmann <steven@...>:

> Hello!
>
> In my language, there are no reflexive or reciprocal pronouns;  verbs
> are
> made reflexive or reciprocal by a clause initial particle.
>
> In such clauses, are the verbs intransitive by virtue of their having
> no
> object in that clause, or transitive by virtue of the fact that, with
> the
> same meaning, they can take objects in other clauses?
>
Well, it depends on the analysis you make, but to me, making a verb reflexive
or reciprocal by adding a particle looks suspiciously like voice marking :)) .
And since the principal job of voice markers is to change the valency of a verb
(a transitive verb, when passivised, can accept only one direct participant:
the subject, while it used to accept two. But when causatived - and you can
consider causative forms like a voice - a new direct participant is added,
whether to intransitive or transitive verbs. So basically voice changes the
number of participants the verb can take - well, this is a gross explanation.
There are other cases where voice change doesn't change the valency of the verb
but just rearranges the participants -), I think we can apply it to this case.
So yes, you're verbs have become intransitive, because of the particle put in
front, which has changed their valency.

> In English, are passivized verbs intransitive?
>
They cannot take a direct object, so yes, they are intransitive :)) . Of
course, since the passive voice is made in English through compound forms, it's
quite uncertain. But in languages that make a passive voice through derivation
(like in Japanese), it's quite clear.

Christophe.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

Take your life as a movie: do not let anybody else play the leading role.

Reply