Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Object Properties List? (was: Copula)

From:Jeffrey Jones <jsjonesmiami@...>
Date:Tuesday, March 20, 2007, 3:21
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 16:20:35 -0400, Eldin Raigmore
<eldin_raigmore@...> wrote:


>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:
Do you mean Direct Objects in dative languages and Primary Objects in dechticaeciative (sp?) languages? If not, I had understood that Direct Objects corresponded to Secondary Objects and Indirect Objects to Primary Objects.
>(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-
> >(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
>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.
As you probably know, Naisek assigns the ergative, dative, and absolutive cases according the type of role with agents taking the ergative, recipients and perceivers taking the dative, and patients taking the absolutive. The subject is whichever case the verb agrees with: if the verb allows an ergative argument, it agrees with the ergative; else if the verb allows a dative argument, it agrees with the dative; else it agrees with the absolutive. The passives delete the ergative and/or dative argument from the argument structure, changing the verb's agreement. The causative adds an ergative argument, which becomes the subject.