Algonquian Parallel? Muskogean Parallel?

[voorhis at westman.wave.ca]

Koontz John E wrote:
> I take it that there are actually *both* pseudo-intransitives and
> pseudo-transitives in Algonquain languages?

Yes.

> Do pseudo-transitives, which
> seem to be the relevant class involve a non-concordial argument (or maybe
> the term here is complement)?

Yes, and that contrasts with the true transitive inanimate verbs which
do have a suffix for inanimate object - that's in the view of those who
believe in the pseudo-categories.  You're making me defend an analysis
here that I disagree with.  I don't think what has been identified as
the inan. obj. suffix is a morpheme at all.

> Was the 'seek help from' verb (I deleted the example in editing this down)
> a pseudo-transitive, so-called, or that something different?

It is a pseudo-transitive, but of a subclass that admits objects of
either gender.  This class I do accept.

> Actually, I'm sort of casting about for a better term than "experiencer
> (subject) verb."  I've already explained why "dative subject" doesn't
> appeal to me.  I'd also like something that doesn't presume the subject
> issue, or, at least, address it, since that introduces a number of
> possibly irrelevant assumptions.

Someone has already said "double stative."

> There are at least four morphological classes of these verbs to handle in
> Siouan contexts, to wit, verbs like dhiNge that are always "like that,"
> but aren't dative, verbs like git?e that are always like that, and are
> dative, verbs that stative but can also act like that, and, as I recall
> from previous discussions, verbs that are probably always like that and
> involve a locative.

Double statives, dative double statives, optionally double statives and
locative double statives?  Try telling your students about *that* on the
first day of linguistics class.

Paul