argument structure k'u etc.

["Alfred W. Tüting"]

> I run into similar problems when people claim that "eat" in "we
eat every afternoon at 4:00" has an "implied object" because you have to
eat something.  I think it is purely intransitive in that kind of context,
and has only one argument, logic or no logic. <<



Yes, "logic or no logic" ;-) I assume that you refer to English (or most
Indo-European) grammar, otherwise this would be a somewhat biased view
on the matter. (I'm unsure whether or not this distinction of "to eat"
being two verbs, one transitive and one intransitive, is nothing but
kind of psycho-linguistic speculation.)

In Lojban (le logji bangu = the logic language) e.g. the "selbri" (say,
predicate) "to eat" is defined as:

eats  citka (cti): x1 |/ingests/consumes (transitive verb) x2

which expands to zo'e (cu) citka zo'e (zo'e=the obvious value of an
indefinite unspecified sumti, say, argument).
So one is free to express:

citka - smb (obvious/unexpressed) eats smth/smb(!) obvious/unexpressed
(the second zo'e-slot actually can also refer to a human e.g. in some
cannibalistic invironment ;-) )
mi pu citka [zo'e] - I ate (smth. unspecified)
le mlatu cu citka loi ratcu - the cat(s) eat(s) mice
[zo'e] na mu'o citka le sanmi - smb. unspecified doesn't/didn't/will not
eat up the meal

I.e. in Lojban - logically/grammatically - there are always all
arguments present (although maybe unexpressed/unspecified) that are
defined as pertaining to the selbri (predicate). I tend to assume that
this actually reflects "nature" (space and time human utterances perform
in).

In Dakota language (grammar)also, parts of speech (verbs=one-word
sentences), if transitive (I'd say by their "nature"), always point to
(a) definite participant(s) (albeit unspecified and understood by
context). So sometimes there's need to make them generic (by affixation
of _wa-_, which maybe might derive from _wan_?).

In Hungarian, it is kind of the other way around: any verb able to be
transitive by "nature" has a basic form that is generic and special
endings to make it specific.
E.g.
Szeretek könyveket - I love books (generic direct object)
Szeretem a könyveket - I love the books (specific direct object)
Olvasok könyvet - I read a book (generic direct object)
Olvasom (a) könyveimet - I read my books (specific direct object)

Only 3rd person pronouns are regarded as specific, but not 1st p.p.:
Szereted õt/õket - You love him, her, it/them
Szeretsz engem(et) - You love me
So, the well-known question is usually expressed simply by "Szeretsz?"
with the direct object implied/understood: Do you love me? (And the
expected answer has a special form for 2nd p s/pl: "Szeretlek
(téged/titeket)!"
(These implied objects also work with "datives": e.g. Nekem hiányoz -
to-me s/he, it-lacks -> I miss him/her/it, but also simply: "Hiányzol!"
- you-lack (to-me) -> I miss you!)


Chinese "to eat" (chi) actually is transitive and needs to have a direct
object: not unlike in Dakota, kind of generic object has to go with the
werb, i.e. "chi fàn" (lit.: to eat "rice", rice=generic word for food).


So, my conclusion might be that at least it depends on each language's
grammar - and, nontheless, I'm quite hesitant with regard to "eat" in
"we eat every afternoon at 4:00" not having an "implied direct object". :((




Alfred