argument structure k'u etc.

[ROOD DAVID S]

Linda, that is indeed an interesting suggestion.  I agree with Pam that in
languages like English, with heavily used copulas, predicate nominals are
predicates, not arguments.  Are you in a position to investigate hecha (or
e) a little more?  I'm not sure whether it's really a copula, or a verb of
identification (is there a difference?). What happens if you're planning a
prank with role substitution, and you need to say "I'm going to be you,
and you be me"  (note English "me", by the way)?  I'm going to guess it'd
have to be "niye hemacha kte, miye henicha kte" and not *hemayacha or,
abosultely out, *hechicha.  Actually, I bet the more likely construction
would be niye (cha?) miye kte, which would confirm the "predicate"
analysis -- but I don't know what might happen if you force the use of
"hecha".

Pam, as for "other things hanging around" not being arguments, I think I
would continue to believe that happens, on the basis of prepositional
"things hanging around" that are often required (but not random) as part
of the semantic structure of a verb.  English, "put", e.g., requires a
locative (you can't just "put something").  Does that mean that the
locative is an argument of that verb?  Or is the absence of prepositional
marking part of the prerequisite for calling something an argument?  I
think the selectional restrictions on Lak. verbs (maybe in all
languages) have two layers: core, which are syntactically identifiable
somehow (Lak. potentially indexed on the verb if there is morphology for
the task), and others that may be required or optional.  The reason for
making the distinction is just so you can identify what must be indexed
and what cannot be indexed.  Now, is that circular?  I don't think so, if
the goal is to specify the syntactic requirements of verbs in their
lexical entries.

Bob's comment about the Dryer "primary/secondary" argument typology is
relevant, except that Lak. has a very robust "dative case" that it can and
does utilize quite often to show "secondary" argument (i.e. obliquely
marked) status for recipients and beneficiaries.  I have somehow
internalized the idea that Dryer's theory is a typology of systems (some
languages do it one way, some the other), not a variable for individual
verbs.  That may not be right, or it may be that the more reasonable
device would be to say that Lak. has some indirect object verbs and some
two-object verbs. (The latter has been claimed for the few German verbs
that take two accusatives, for example, like lehren 'teach' (Er hat mich
die Sprache gelehrt) 'he taught me the language' or kosten 'cost' (das hat
mich keinen Pfennig gekostet 'that didn't cost me a cent').

	So to go back where this started: I'm still going to maintain that
Lakhota k'u 'give' takes only two arguments, plus an obligatory adjunct. I
don't think the "secondary object" idea adds anything to this problem in
this language.  I guess I would then have to say that hecha takes only one
argument, plus an obligatory predicative nominal, and uya 'grow; sprout'
(if I've got the facts right) takes one argument with certain restricted
properties.

David S. Rood
Dept. of Linguistics
Univ. of Colorado
295 UCB
Boulder, CO 80309-0295
USA
rood at colorado.edu

On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, Pamela Munro wrote:

> 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
>
>