transitivity, locative prefixes & the pronomin. argument hypothesis.

[rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu]

>On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, Koontz John E wrote:
>> Whether a verb with a locative can govern a nominal argument, and which
>> argument this would be functionally, or whether ditransitives can govern
>> two arguments, would also be worth considering, though I suspect they
>> would be less diagnostic.  Compare cases like dhiNge' 'to lack', which
>> agrees with the lacker using stative (object) pronominals, but still
>> permits a nominal reference to the lacked.

> My point is that I don't think the verb can agree pronominally with the
> thing lacked.  I don't know how you would say something like 'Since I
> don't have you, my life isn't worth living.' I expect there's a
paraphrase
> that avoids the issue.

Would the first clause be something like:  Dhi aNdhiN'ge (egaN')...  ?

The word dhiNge' shouldn't be thought of as 'to lack', which is transitive
in English, but rather as 'to be gone' or 'to be lacking'.  You can then
have a subject which is missing with respect to me.  This is normally in
the third person, so we don't get an affixed pronominal as a visible
parameter to the verb.  So if the emphatic pronoun dhi is a free argument
here, does it need a corresponding affixed pronoun, or can it be treated
the same as any other free nominal argument?

aNska'.                 I am (colored) white.
hi ska'.                The teeth are white.
hi aNska'.              My teeth are white.  (= the teeth are white with
                                                respect to me. )

This sequence, if correct, would mean that a stative verb can take two
arguments, to one of which the quality is ascribed, and the other of
which is sort of the indirect object of that relationship.

We might conceive it differently, though, if we suppose that the
nominal argument can function adverbially as a qualifier of the verb;
i.e. hi aNska' could mean "I am white teeth-wise".  Then hi ska'
could be interpreted in either of two different ways.  But if this
were true, "ShaN'ge aNdhiN'ge" would have to mean: "I am missing
horse-wise", which doesn't seem to make much sense.  I think I favor
the first possibility.

Interesting issue...

Rory