argument structure k'u etc.

[Pamela Munro]

Ah, truly interesting. My own feeling is that predicate nominals in fact
are not arguments (they aren't really meaningful referential entities,
but rather part of the predicate) -- but this is an excellent case to
discuss.

Pam

lcumberl at indiana.edu wrote:

>Quoting ROOD DAVID S <rood at spot.Colorado.EDU>:
>
>
>
>>Pam, I'm not quite sure that this is a very important discussion, even
>>though I started it (one of my pet peeves, for years, has been the claim
>>that 'give' takes indirect objects universally).  However, it's kind of
>>fun.
>>
>>
>
>Well, I think it's important, and quite timely for me.
>
>It occurs to me that there may be a similar problem with z^echa (Lak. hecha).
>It's a stative verb but there are can be two nominal expressions in the clause:
>
>wohena z^e-ma-cha 'I am a cook'
>
>Mary wohena z^echa  'Mary is a cook'
>
>z^echa can only take one pronominal affix, so the structure of the verb in the
>second sentence cannot be *z^e-0-0-cha.
>
>(I've said so in the soon-to-be-pried-from-my-reluctant-hands grammar, so if I'm
>wrong, tell me now!)
>
>Linda
>
>
>
>

--
Pamela Munro,
Professor, Linguistics, UCLA
UCLA Box 951543
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1543
http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/munro/munro.htm

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20050401/2d4ba0cc/attachment.htm>