Object Properties List? (was: Copula)

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 08:25:26 +0000, R A Brown
<ray@...> wrote:
[snip]]
>Yes, but even in a non-ergative language not all bivalent verbs have
>nominative and accusative (subject & direct objects). Latin has a whole
>lot of bivalent verbs where the object is regarded as _indirect_ and
>these verbs have nominative and dative; nor can the dative object become
>the subject of a passive form. IIRC German also has some verbs that
>behave like this.
[snip]
>Hardly - the second argument never has the semantic role of patient. It
>could never be considered a direct object surely? You couldn't even in
>in English make the second argument the subject of a passive, as you can
>with a transitive verb, cf.
>I knew him ~ He was known but me.
>But NOT:
>It is me ~ *I am been by it
>
>Logically, I suppose, the second argument of verbs like 'to be' or 'to
>seem' would, in a language with a case system, have their own
>'predicative case.'
Some do, don't they?  And don't some grammarians call it an "equative case",
or even an "essive case", instead of a "predicative case"?

[snip]
>Which would mean the copula has a passive form - I suspect there are none.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Keenan came up with a "subject properties list" which cross-linguistically
helped decide whether or not certain clauses had (a) subject(s), and if so
which participant was the subject.

Has anyone done the same for Primary Objects and/or Direct Objects?

I'd suspect most of the things on Keenan's "Subject Properties List" would also
apply to a Primary or Direct Object; whichever direct-core-participant, direct-
argument, or term, has the second-most of those properties, is probably the
Direct or Primary Object.

But there are a few that apply to Direct or Primary Objects, but not to
Subjects.  Some of them probably are:

(1) In most languages, in most basic clauses, the Subject will proceed all of
the Objects, including the Primary or Direct one.

(2) In most languages, in most basic clauses, the Primary or Direct Object
comes closer to the verb than any other noun, noun phrase, nominal, nominal
phrase, pronoun, pronoun phrase, pronominal, pronominal phrase, or whatever.

(3) In many languages, in most basic clauses, nothing is allowed to come
between the Verb and the Primary Object or Direct Object.

(4) If any participant can be "promoted" to "subject" by Passivization or Anti-
Passivization, the Primary Object or Direct Object can be.

(5) In some languages, no other participant, except the Direct or Primary
Object, can be "promoted" to Subject by "Passivization" or "Anti-Passivization".

(6) In languages which are not syntactically ergative, the Patient is probably
the Direct or Primary Object, and the Direct or Primary Object is probably the
Patient, of basic clauses.  (In languages which are syntactically ergative, it is
the Agent which is probably the Primary Object.)

(7) If a language has Applicativization, it is the "Primary Object" (or "Direct
Object") "slot" to which other participants may be applicativized.

(8) Item (7) is especially true of "Dative Movement" (or "Anti-Dative
Movement").

(9) In languages which allow "Object-Incorporation", if any object can be
incorporated into the verb, the Direct or Primary Object can be so
incorporated.  In some languages which allow "Object-Incorporation", _only_
the "Direct" or "Primary" Object can be so incorporated.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Has anyone seen a better or more complete list than this?

Does anyone feel any of the above should be modified?

Does anyone feel any of the above should be taken off the list?

What else do people think should be on the list?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ObConLang:

In your conlangs, have you handled these questions?  If so, how?  If not, do
you plan to?

In Adpihi's "Basic Sentences", I use Douty's "Actor Proto-Properties"
and "Undergoer Proto-Properties" to decide on the role.  If a participant is
more Agentive than any other but is less Patientive than at least one other, it
is the Agent (Subject) of Basic sentences; if a participant is more Patientive
than any other but less Agentive than at least one other, it is the Patient
(Primary Object) of Basic sentences; if a participant is both more Agentive
than any other (controls or performs or effects or instigates) and more
Patientive than any other (affected), it is the Subject (and the clause
is "intransitive" or at most semi-transitive -- e.g. maybe reflexive,
maybe "ingestive"); if a core's direct argument is both less Agentive than some
other and less Patientive than some other, it is an "Extended Core Argument"
(a secondary object).
Most of Adpihi's "Basic" clauses are
S (only a Subject)
A U (an Actor and an Undergoer -- monotransitive clauses)
S E (a Subject and an Extended Core Argument -- bivalent intransitive
clauses, rather like those in Latin that have an "indirect" object but no "direct"
object)
A U E (an Actor, and Undergoer, and a Secondary Object -- ditransitive
clauses)

Some S E E clauses, A U E E clauses, and/or S E E E clauses may be possible;
as may some impersonal clauses (without participants).  I have yet to decide.

Reply