[Lingtyp] verbless predications

Thu Aug 8 20:17:33 UTC 2024

Stassen’s Predicative Possession (as valuable as his Intransitive Possession) shows that ‘Have’ possession -- a transitive predicate strategy with possessor as the subject-like argument and possessum as object-like argument -- is found throughout the world (pp. 64-69). Also, intransitive strategies for encoding predicative possession often are reanalyzed as the transitive ‘Have’ strategy, a phenomenon that Stassen calls ‘Have-drift’ and discusses in chapter 6 of his book.

Best wishes,
Bill

Stassen, Leon. 2009. Predicative possession. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

> On Aug 8, 2024, at 2:03 PM, Sergey Loesov via Lingtyp <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org> wrote:
> 
> My naïve feeling is that the finite verb HAVE is best known from Romance and Germanic. It is absent from Semitic, at least part of Slavic (Russian, eastern dialects of Ukrainian), Turkish, Kurdish (at least Kurmanji), etc. 
> 
> On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 at 21:51, Martin Haspelmath via Lingtyp <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org <mailto:lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>> wrote:
>> There is, incidentally, an interesting terminological question concerning what we regard as "verbless/nonverbal". What about (1) and (2), for example?
>> 
>> (1) We have enough money.
>> 
>> (2) (German): Auf dem Tisch liegt ein Buch [on the table lies a book] 'There is a book on the table'
>> 
>> Do predpossessive sentences like (1) generally fall under "nonverbal predication", or only when they do not include a "verb"? Is English "have" a verb in this sense? But what about "copula verbs"? Aren't they "verbal", too?
>> 
>> And what should we say about existential clauses like (2) ('There is a book on the table'), which commonly make use of posture verbs, as in German? Are existential clauses sometimes "verbal" and sometimes "verbless"?
>> 
>> It seems to me that the best way to define terms such as "verbal predication", "existential clause", and "predpossessive clause" is as construction-functions. By contrast, the terms "copula clause" and "transpossessive construction" (= 'have' construction) are best defined as construction-strategies.
>> 
>> (For the contrast between construction(-function)s and (construction-)strategies, see Croft 2022, and my forthcoming paper: https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/007897)
>> 
>> Thus, I would say that (1) and (2) are nonverbal (in a comparative-concept perspective), even though from a language-particular viewpoint, "have" is an English Verb, and "liegen" is a German Verb.
>> 
>> Martin
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 08.08.24 19:30, Spike Gildea via Lingtyp wrote:
>> 
>>> I would also suggest:
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Mikkelsen, Line. 2011. Copular clauses. In Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger, and Paul Portner (eds.) Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, volume 2, 1805–1829. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
>>> 
>>> Overall, Simon, Rosa Vallejos, & Spike Gildea. 2018. Non-verbal predication in Amazonian languages: Introduction. Nonverbal predication in Amazonian Languages, ed. by Simon Overall, Rosa Vallejos, & Spike Gildea, 1-49. Typological Studies in Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
>>> 
>>> Pustet, Regina. 2003. Copulas: Universals in the categorization of the lexicon. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> And especially:
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Stassen, Leon. 1997. Intransitive Predication. Oxford: OUP.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> 
>>> Spike
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> From: Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> <mailto:lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> on behalf of Christian Lehmann via Lingtyp <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org> <mailto:lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>>> Date: Thursday, August 8, 2024 at 1:49 PM
>>> To: lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org <mailto:lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org> <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org> <mailto:lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] verbless predications
>>> 
>>> Dear Sergey,
>>> 
>>> here are some references for nominal clauses:
>>> 
>>> Clairis, Christos & Chamoreau, Claudine & Costaouec, Denis & Guérin, Françoise (eds.) 2005, Typologie de la syntaxe connective. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes (Rivages linguistiques).
>>> 
>>> Hengeveld, Kees 1990, "Semantic relations in non-verbal predications." Nuyts, Jan & Bolkestein, A. Machtelt & Vet, Co (eds.), Layers and levels of representation in language theory. A functional view. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: J. Benjamins; 101-122.
>>> 
>>> Hengeveld, Kees 1992, Non-verbal predication. Theory, typology, diachrony. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
>>> 
>>> Levin, Saul 1978, "Predication through an obligatory copulative verb." LACUS 5:503-509.
>>> 
>>> Li, Charles N. & Thompson, Sandra A. 1977, "A mechanism for the development of copula morphemes." Li, Charles N. (ed.), Mechanisms of syntactic change. Austin & London: University of Texas Press; 419-444.
>>> 
>>> Penner, Zvi 1988, The grammar of the nominal sentence. A government-binding approach. Bern: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität (Arbeitspapier, 24).
>>> 
>>> Pernée, Lucien 1985, "La relation prédicative en grec: phrase nominale et verbe être." Travaux du Cercle Linguistique d'Aix-en-Provence 3:61-75.
>>> 
>>> Rapoport, Tova R. 1987, Copular, nominal and small clauses. A study of Israeli Hebrew. Cambridge: MIT, Department of Linguistics & Philosophy (Unpubl. PhD dissertation).
>>> 
>>> Vapnarsky, Valentina 2013, "Is Yucatec Maya an omnipredicative language? Predication, the copula and focus constructions." Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 66:40-86.
>>> 
>>> Wetzer, Harrie 1992, "`Nouny' and `verby' adjectivals: a typology of predicative adjectival constructions." Kefer, Michel & Van der Auwera (eds.), Meaning and grammar. Cross-linguistic perspectives. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology, 10); 223-262.
>>> 
>>> Wetzer, Harrie 1996, The typology of adjectival predication. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology, 17).
>>> 
>>> A topic different from this one are clauses which are missing their verb. This is treated for Latin in
>>> 
>>> Carvalho, Paulo de 1978, "Syntaxe et sémantique: verbe et phrase en latin." Revue des Études Anciennes 80:239-247.
>>> 
>>> and for Russian in
>>> 
>>> Wiemer, Björn 1996, "Klassifikacija nulevyx skazujemyx v russkom jazyke po ix leksičeskim i referencial'nym xarakteristikam." Studia z Filologii Polskiej i Słowańskiej 33:245-273.
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> 
>>> Christian
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lingtyp mailing list
>>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org <mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>>> https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>> -- 
>> Martin Haspelmath
>> Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
>> Deutscher Platz 6
>> D-04103 Leipzig
>> https://www.eva.mpg.de/linguistic-and-cultural-evolution/staff/martin-haspelmath/
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lingtyp mailing list
>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org <mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>> https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20240808/fc105650/attachment.htm>