[Lingtyp] terminological question about intransitive verbs

Siva Kalyan sivakalyan.princeton at gmail.com
Wed May 12 10:31:57 UTC 2021

I’ve heard Mark Donohue use “agentive” /əˈdʒɛntɪv/ and “patientive” /pəˈʃjɛntɪv/.


> On 12 May 2021, at 8:24 pm, Christian Lehmann <christian.lehmann at uni-erfurt.de> wrote:
> The only or direct actant of an intransitive verb may be its actor (run) or its undergoer (die). This may be taken to be a feature of the verb's valency. There are then two valency classes of intransitive verbs. I know of the following terms for these:
> active - inactive (Klimov)
> agentive - non-agentive
> unergative - unaccusative (Perlmutter)
> All of these pairs have terminological or conceptual problems (which I can name if desired). I have therefore been looking for better     terms. I had called them
> actor-oriented - undergoer-oriented.
> However, I need the term 'oriented' in verbal grammar in a different sense, so I have to replace these. Currently, I call them
> actor-holding - undergoer-holding
> Not particularly elegant, are they?
> Are there good terms on the linguistic market (of the past two centuries) for what is meant by the above? Or failing this, brilliant neologisms?
> Grateful for suggestions,
> Christian
> -- 
> Prof. em. Dr. Christian Lehmann
> Rudolfstr. 4
> 99092 Erfurt
> Deutschland
> Tel.:	+49/361/2113417
> E-Post:	christianw_lehmann at arcor.de <mailto:christianw_lehmann at arcor.de>
> Web:	https://www.christianlehmann.eu <https://www.christianlehmann.eu/>_______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20210512/4b947733/attachment.htm>

More information about the Lingtyp mailing list