<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { margin-top: 0 ; margin-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>RE: Fw: Error Condition Re: Re: transitivity,
etc,</title></head><body>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: owner-siouan@lists.colorado.edu<br>
> [mailto:owner-siouan@lists.colorado.edu]<span
></span>On Behalf Of R. Rankin<br>
> Sent: September 29, 2002 4:16 PM<br>
> To: siouan@lists.colorado.edu<br>
> Subject: Re: Fw: Error Condition Re: Re: transitivity, etc,<br>
><br>
><br>
> I think all the MVS languages have this pattern with at<br>
> least a few of those "experiencer" verbs.
They're not<br>
> just Dakotan, and you can get two stative pronominals.<br>
> Membership in the class varies, just as stative-status<br>
> does across Siouan.<br>
><br>
> If you believe that "subject" is part of
"UG", then you<br>
> have verbs with stative subjects acting transitively on<br>
> objects -- both marked w/ pronominals from the<br>
> "stative" set.<br>
<br>
I'm wondering about this too. Given that I do have to work with a
'subject',<br>
a work-around is going to be in order. Is there any chance that the
either<br>
the subject or object of these verbs is different in some way? A
dative<br>
perhaps? (I'm grasping at straws). Also, is there some ordering
difference<br>
with these? I have a set that is completely incomprehensible to
me.<br>
<br>
Linda? Do you have a set of these in Nakota? Any idea at all how they
work,<br>
because they seem to be out to lunch and completely different from
many of<br>
the Lakhota ones.<br>
<br>
Shannon<br>
(I am *so* hoping to deal with this as a 'I don't know how this
works, it<br>
requires further study'. <grin>)</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>Hi All,</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>I don't think 'subject' is a part of UG at lease in a GB/MP
framework (although it is in a LFG/RG framework). As a matter
of fact, the primacy of grammatical relations (subject, object,
indirect object, etc.) is denied in GB/MP. These relations are
derived from other primitives. There properties emerge from
various components of the grammar (structural position, case,
theta-theory, etc.) There should be no rule/transformation that
refers to "subject" that can't be formulated in terms of
"agent" (theta-role) or "higest NP in the clause"
(position) or "nominative" (case). For more on this see
James McCloskey's article on subjects in Haegeman's 1999<u> Elements
of Grammar</u>. It is a good overview of all of the relevant
arguments and decompositions.</div>
<div><x-tab> </x-tab>I'm
not quite sure how to look at these types of double stative verbs,
but we should be able to come up with something.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>--John</div>
</body>
</html>