Primary object languages & pronouns
dan.everett at MAN.AC.UK
Wed Apr 23 18:50:13 UTC 2003
From: FUNKNET -- Discussion of issues in Functional Linguistics
[mailto:FUNKNET at LISTSERV.RICE.EDU] On Behalf Of Matthew Dryer
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 6:00 PM
To: FUNKNET at LISTSERV.RICE.EDU
Subject: Re: Primary object languages & pronouns
Contrary to what Dan Everett says, the approach if my 1986 paper
(Primary objects, secondary objects, and antidative) would not analyse
Wari' as a language with obligatory antidative. In fact, Wari' is
exactly the sort of language I proposed the notions of primary object
and secondary object for.
>Right, Matthew. I should have avoided reference to your work since this
is not what the posting was about. I was simply trying to get your
reference in. I should have left it vague. Your paper doesn't really
enter into my current research at all, I was just trying to get the
appropriate references. So the rest of your posting, except for what is
below is a red-herring, that I introduced, so apologies.
Finally, it isn't clear to me what Dan is asking. When he says that the
recipient cannot be a pronoun, does he mean that it cannot be an
independent pronoun, but must be realized entirely by the verb
morphology? There are certainly languages where this is true, not only
for recipients, but also for subjects and/or objects.
> You got it, Matthew. This is what I am asking. Romance languages often
restrict pronouns to subject position, for example, using clitics
elsewhere. Wari' only allows verb morphology or NPs/proper names for the
indirect object/Recipient. But you didn't give an example of a language
that has exactly the Wari' restriction. Do you have one?
More information about the Funknet