transitivity of eat??

[ROOD DAVID S]

Alfred,
	In Wichita there are two verbs to eat, one used when there is an
object (ka'ac), and one when there is none (wa:wa'a).  When you call
people to dinner, you say "We're going to eat now" (ke'ecira:kwa:wa'a)
with the intransitive verb.
	An English verb with a similar argument structure is 'to dine'.
Do you think that, too, has a covert object???
	I do not think that 'eat' in English always implies an object.
	David


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

On Sat, 2 Apr 2005, [ISO-8859-1] "Alfred W. Tüting" wrote:

>
> > 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>