Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: THEORY: Bivalent Intransitive Verbs

From:Patrick Littell <puchitao@...>
Date:Wednesday, August 3, 2005, 4:05
On 8/2/05, Tom Chappell <tomhchappell@...> wrote:

Does anyone on the list know anything about natlangs with Bivalent 
> Intransitive verbs? >
I think I may have mentioned it in a previous conversation of ours, but Manam has something very much like this. Verbs are categorized by their minimum valency, but each verb may take, in addition, one extra argument that is *not* the direct object. (That is, does not fill the "patient" agreement slot on the verb.) What role this argument fills depends on the verb -- it's not always, for example, Beneficiary. (Maybe it's not ever Benificiary, which has its own way of being marked on the verb, but I don't remember.) As I had mentioned, it's a bit of a crapshoot as to which role is realized as what object for a given verb. And, as mentioned, in 3-argument bivalent (transitive) verbs, the speaker may choose which non-subject argument to treat as a "Patient" and which to treat as the "extra" argument via the interesting extension of the transitivizing suffix -a?. This is not a case of a *required* 2-argument intransitive verb, but worth mentioning. ----------------- This reminds me of an oddity in the agreement system of Kokota that you'll find interesting. (Thanks, Roger; I don't know if anyone else made use of your link, but I studied it in depth.) Kokota agreement works like so: There's a hierarchy of semantic roles something like Agent/Stative > Experiencer > Location/Source/Goal > Patient. ("Statives" are the subjects of stative verbs.) The subject slot will reference the (non-oblique) argument that is highest in this hierarchy, and may not reference Patients. The object slot references the highest (non-oblique) argument that is not an Agent/Stative. A/S E L/S/G P <--------Sub-----------> <--------Obj---------> The only thing is, there's no rule against both slots referencing the same participant. So with experiential verbs, the experiencer is *both* -- it's simultaneously the highest non-patient and the highest non-agent. There are also a number of verbs that can either be ordinary-paradigm verbs or experiential-paradigm verbs, depending on... hmm, I think the level of agency, like a Fluid-S system. Neat idea: For agreement, make a +HR slot and a +LR slot. When the main argument is ABS, it is referenced in *both*. -- Patrick Littell PHIL205: MWF 2:00-3:00, M 6:00-9:00 Voice Mail: ext 744 Spring 05 Office Hours: M 3:00-6:00