verb agreement in definiteness (fwd)

[Gideon Goldenberg]

>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 16:24:38 -0600 (CST)
>From: Edith A Moravcsik <edith at csd.uwm.edu>
>To: lingtyp at linguist.ldc.upenn.edu
>Subject: verb agreement in definiteness
>
>This is response to Dunstan Brown's message on verb agreement in
>definiteness as well as to two other messages on the topic that came
>directly to my address, by Elisabeth Leiss and Stefan Georg.
>
>Stefan Georg requested that I reproduce the data on Abkhaz from
>Whaley's book. Here are the two sentences cited (a tilde
>stands for the umlaut sign over the preceding vowel):
>
>
>   l. Kassa borsa-w-in      wa~ssa~da~-w
>      Kassa wallet-the-OBJ  took-it
>     'Kassa took the wallet.'
>
>   2. Kassa borsa  wa~ssa~da~
>      Kassa wallet took
>     'Kassa took a wallet.'
>
>
>Whaley adds: "If they /=direct objects/ are definite, an agreement

>Edith A. Moravcsik
>
>

The sentences here quoted are not Abkhaz but Amharic.
They represent the rather common construction with
proleptic object suffixes. Since a suffixed object
pronoun is necessarily definite (as independent
pronouns also usually are), the corresponding nominal
object should consequently be definite. It could be
said that a pronominal representative of the object
is incorporated in the verb-complex. "wässädäw" means
literally "he took it (or: him)", which makes anyway
a complete sentence by itself. On the occasion that
"agreement in definiteness" is so thoroughly discussed,
is it not time to reconsider seriously the appositive
nature of agreement in general?

-----------------------------------
Gideon  Goldenberg
48  Ben-Maimon Ave.
IL-92261 Jerusalem
I
srael