Summary of object-like adverbials

[bingfu]

Dear Prof. Givon,

	Thanks for your very informative message!

	If morphological object-marker is so widely used
much beyond objects, we may term them just as minimal marker
or default marker, etc.  In fact, their function is first to
mark atypical objects, not typical. Because atypical objects
are likely to be confused with subjects, with respect to thematic
roles, they need to be marked, or discriminated.
The fact that object-markers mark atypical objects more often than
typical one, one may say, as Comrie
suggested, their primary function is to discriminate role differences, but
not indicate specific roles.
	This may be related to the inconsitency I mentioned in my
summary.

	Best
	Bingfu


On Wed, 16 Dec 1998, Tom Givon wrote:

>
> There is one sense in which you need to take Martin's report with a ceretain
> grain of salt (or, caution). What he says is certainly true of the
> MORPHOLOGICAL marking on--not only--TIME ADVERBIAL, but also other
> onlique arguments. But--if OBJECTHOOD ('direct objecthood') is to be
> looked at also via SYNTACTIC/behavioral criteria, the identity with
> direct object disapears. Of course, maybe your original qestion only
> pertained to morphology...
>
>
> Another small caveat involves languages with a heavy reliance on verb
> serializations. In such languages, many, often even most, obliquest
> are morphologically, and often also syntactically, object-like. Again,
> I don't know if your search stretches that wide.
>
> Best,  TG
>
>
>
>