<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
<div dir="auto">Dear Christian</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">If it understand you correctly, what you describe (cross-clausal functional control of B or C, not A) would seem to fit Dyirbal and some Austronesian languages (like Balinese and some dialects of Sasak).</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Best</div>
<div dir="auto">Peter</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div id="ms-outlook-mobile-signature" dir="auto">Sent from <a href="https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg">
Outlook for Android</a></div>
<hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%" tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size:11pt" color="#000000"><b>From:</b> Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org> on behalf of Christian Lehmann via Lingtyp <lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, November 4, 2024 8:15:22 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org <lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Lingtyp] phoric control into dependent verb form</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="x_western" align="left" style="page-break-before:always">Dear specialists in syntax,</p>
<p class="x_western" style="margin-bottom:0.5cm">I have a question concerning the referential control relation between an argument
<font color="#ff0000"><u>N</u></font><font color="#ff0000"><u><sup>h</sup></u></font> of a superordinate predication and a zero argument
<font color="#ff0000"><u>N</u></font><font color="#ff0000"><u><sup>d</sup></u></font> of a dependent predication such that
<font color="#ff0000"><u>N</u></font><font color="#ff0000"><u><sup>h</sup></u></font> determines the reference of
<font color="#ff0000"><u>N</u></font><font color="#ff0000"><u><sup>d</sup></u></font>, as in this example:</p>
<p class="x_western" align="left">John<sub>i</sub> tried [∅<sub>i</sub> to introduce Mary to Bill].</p>
<p class="x_western" align="left">As far as I know about this chapter of syntax (which is very little), the zero argument of the dependent predicate whose reference is thus controlled is the subject of the dependent verb, and the latter appears in a non-finite
form which is commonly (though not necessarily) an infinitive.</p>
<p class="x_western" align="left">Suppose I have a construction</p>
<p class="x_western" align="left">[ [N<sup>h</sup><sub>i</sub>]<sub>NP</sub> V<sup>h</sup> [ ∅<sub>i</sub> X<sub>NP</sub> V<sup>d</sup>-Inf] ]</p>
<p class="x_western" align="left">where the dependent infinitive V<sup>d</sup> has a zero argument which is under referential control by some N<sup>h</sup> of the matrix clause.</p>
<p class="x_western" align="left">Can I assert that the category of the ∅ must be NP and its function must be subject of V<sup>d</sup>?</p>
<p class="x_western" align="left">Putting the question the other way around: Given a configuration</p>
<p class="x_western" align="left">John tried [ A introduce B to C ],</p>
<p class="x_western" align="left">is it possible, in some language, for B or C to be John without adapting the voice or valency of V<sup>d</sup>? That is, ‘introduce’ would be an active verb form, though ex hypothesi not an infinitive of the familiar kind,
because for these the answer appears to be ‘no’.</p>
<p class="x_western" align="left">Background of my question: Cabecar has two transitive constructions:</p>
<p class="x_western" align="left">1) [NP<sub>Erg</sub> NP<sub>Abs</sub> V]</p>
<p class="x_western" align="left">2) [ NP<sub>1</sub> NP<sub>2</sub> V]</p>
<p class="x_western" align="left">Construction 1 is ergative, with the syntactic function of NP<sub>Erg</sub> being marked while NP<sub>Abs</sub> is a bare NP. In construction 2, both NP<sub>1</sub> and NP<sub>2</sub> are bare NPs, in fixed order, but lacking
marking of their syntactic function. NP<sub>2</sub> is not distinguishable from NP<sub>Abs</sub>.</p>
<p class="x_western" align="left">Now if I have</p>
<p class="x_western" align="left">[ [N<sup>h</sup><sub>i</sub>]<sub>NP</sub> V<sup>h</sup> [ ∅<sub>i</sub> X<sub>NP</sub> V<sup>d</sup>-Inf] ]</p>
<p class="x_western" align="left">how do I know which of the two transitive constructions is represented in the dependent clause? Is there a principle of general comparative grammar which determines this?</p>
<p class="x_western" align="left">I beg the specialists’ pardon if this question is somehow misplaced.</p>
<p class="x_western" align="left">Christian </p>
<p>-- </p>
<div class="x_moz-signature">
<p style="font-size:90%">Prof. em. Dr. Christian Lehmann<br>
Rudolfstr. 4<br>
99092 Erfurt<br>
<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Deutschland</span></p>
<table style="font-size:80%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Tel.:</td>
<td>+49/361/2113417</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>E-Post:</td>
<td><a class="x_moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:christianw_lehmann@arcor.de">christianw_lehmann@arcor.de</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Web:</td>
<td><a class="x_moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.christianlehmann.eu/" originalsrc="https://www.christianlehmann.eu/" shash="j73IRe2Rb+7DDcI86wa6lNKRwz/TXSAmo/IwboPr/HdU1tDouc+iOKRbqOZzasmPD9W1wy9J3ypxbwlVpfEy4GGHbjYiTQ1BbTsVNlnRoZ5Gx/labSFer2YHG1Sbc7Qyyb7U92dqej2gfHuPcanKkNbJw1yAJIY9fLk4lkI0jyA=">https://www.christianlehmann.eu</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>