Re: OT: A couple of points of terminology.

In a message dated 09/1/02 9:26:04 AM, butsuri@MYREALBOX.COM writes:

<< First, it refers to core arguments as those which are "subcategorized"
by the verb.  I don't understand this. >>

    If I'm understanding this correctly, subcategorized arguments are
arguments which the verb can't exist without.  So, "to put", in English, has
three, the putter, the put, and the place where something's put.  Taking
another verb, "to hug", it has two, the hugger and the hugged.  You can say
"I hugged him *on a boat*", "I hugged him *with my arms*", or "I hugged with
*while he wasn't looking*", and you can add an argument, but these are
non-subcategorized arguments, since the verb itself doesn't explicitly call
for them.  (Does this sound right, everyone else?)

<<Secondly, what's "applicativization" as used in the following
sentence:>>

    Applicativization is a process whereby you increase the number of core
arguments (vs. passivation, where you reduce the number of core arguments).
You can do this in many ways.  Let's say you have a verb:

manda = to hug

Which ordinarily takes two arguments.  So you can get:

Sally manda John.

If you add the /-na/ applicative suffix, though, you get a location added:

Sally mandana John table.

Or "table" and "John" might be reversed, and you get "Sally hugs John on a
table", or, trying to put it into English "Sally on-hugs John the table."
I'm not sure what cases these things usually take, though...
    So anyway, what they're talking about is once you've elevated one of
these arguments, you can passivize it.  So let's say the passive is /-sa/,
then ordinarily you'd get:

John-NOM. mandasa (Sally-OBL.).

    Where Sally has been demoted and the verb has only one core
argument--Sally being reduced to an oblique, which isn't necessary.  With the
applicative, though, you can get:

Table-NOM. mandanasa (Sally and John-OBL.--INSTR.?).

    And you get, "The table was hugged on (the doers of which were Sally and
John)", and thus a non-subcategorized NP can take the nominative in a passive
sentence--but only because it was made a subcategorized NP, due to the
applicative.
    If that's not quite right, please someone say something, because I've
been very interested in the applicative ever since I heard about it, and I
want to make sure I'm understanding it right.

-David

"fawiT, Gug&g, tSagZil-a-Gariz, wAj min DidZejsat wazid..."
"Soft, driven, slow and mad, like some new language..."
                    -Jim Morrison

Reply