argument structure k'u etc.

[Koontz John E]

On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, Pamela Munro wrote:
> Well, if you define "argument" as "something marked on the verb" (which
> is fine, and I thought might be the case), this seems fine -- but in
> fact, I think there are other ways to go. For instance, you really can't
> freely add random nouns to Lakhota sentences. I think k'u really is
> semantically and syntactically completed with three associated
> "participants" (to choose a different term, which I often use when
> talking with people who will be confused by "argument). I think each of
> the three is fully as much a part of the sentence as, say, the subject
> of an intransitive -- thus, I think this is a structural feature, not
> just a semantic one. (I thought this before, but wondered if you knew
> any obscure syntactic tests I was unaware of.)

I agree with this.  I'm not really sure how the term argument should be
used, and I don't want to do violence to accepted usage for it.  However,
by restricting themselves historically to seeing only the arguments (or
participants) defined by the canonical property of indexing in the verb
Siouanists have been missing several important categories of verbs. If
non-indexed arguments are considered, then we don't have just actives,
statives, and transitives, we also have ditransitives like k?u and the
"experiencer subject" pattern(s).  (I just slipped a letter or so up and
said "dative subject" where I meant "experiencer subject").