still more on OBJ(theta)

[Joan Bresnan]

A *brief* response to part of Alex Alsina's msg: 

> 
> The observation that OBJ(theta)s and OBL(theta)s cannot be athematic
> could perhaps be explained by having a principle that prevents
> GF(theta)s from linking to a semantic argument, which may be what Joan
> has in mind.  This would also provide the desired motivation for the
> class of GF(theta)s.  However, this principle would be redundant as
> far as obliques are concerned, if we make the reasonable and standard
> assumption that an oblique, because of its morphology, is compatible
> only with a specific kind of semantic argument: it is semantically
> restricted in the original interpretation.

Something that Alex overlooks here, and Lori Levin as well, in her
discussion of what OBJ and OBJ_theta have in common, is that there are
"oblique" or chomeur-like phrases that entirely lack morphological or
adpositional marking.  KiHaya, for example, is shown by Hyman to have
an oblique agentive (like the English by-phrase) that is completely
without such marking, and Kichaga allows this an an option (perhaps
older?) to the na marking shared with Kiswahili.  Locatives are also
completely marked in various cases, while not having object status.
So we can't appeal to morphology to explain the restrictedness
property of oblique arguments.

Joan