<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
Hm, maybe I have another argument against defining "argument" narrowly
as "what can be marked on the verb". My Lakhota isn't ready enough to
supply an example, but I would certainly guess that there are some
intransitive verbs out there that can take only a singular nominal
(third person) subject. (I want one that can take a nominal subject,
not, say, a phenomenological verb that takes no subject, but I want one
where said subject is incompatible with plurality, so we can't get -pi
-- maybe I'm reaching, but I would guess there are such verbs.) In this
case (if such a verb exists), we have a verb that I think everyone
would want to say has one argument (the subject), but where nothing is
marked as subject on the verb. In other words, it seems to me that
ability to show marking on the verb need not be directly related to the
number of arguments a verb takes. (I think that's a matter of what used
to be called subcategorization.)<br>
<br>
Pam<br>
<br>
Koontz John E wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="midPine.GSO.4.58.0504011439100.12092@spot.colorado.edu">
<pre wrap="">On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, Pamela Munro wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Well, if you define "argument" as "something marked on the verb" (which
is fine, and I thought might be the case), this seems fine -- but in
fact, I think there are other ways to go. For instance, you really can't
freely add random nouns to Lakhota sentences. I think k'u really is
semantically and syntactically completed with three associated
"participants" (to choose a different term, which I often use when
talking with people who will be confused by "argument). I think each of
the three is fully as much a part of the sentence as, say, the subject
of an intransitive -- thus, I think this is a structural feature, not
just a semantic one. (I thought this before, but wondered if you knew
any obscure syntactic tests I was unaware of.)
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
I agree with this. I'm not really sure how the term argument should be
used, and I don't want to do violence to accepted usage for it. However,
by restricting themselves historically to seeing only the arguments (or
participants) defined by the canonical property of indexing in the verb
Siouanists have been missing several important categories of verbs. If
non-indexed arguments are considered, then we don't have just actives,
statives, and transitives, we also have ditransitives like k?u and the
"experiencer subject" pattern(s). (I just slipped a letter or so up and
said "dative subject" where I meant "experiencer subject").
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Pamela Munro,
Professor, Linguistics, UCLA
UCLA Box 951543
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1543
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/munro/munro.htm">http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/munro/munro.htm</a>
</pre>
</body>
</html>