transitivity of eat??

[david costa]

In Algonquian, the transitivity of 'eat' is very simple -- there is a stem that
takes inanimate objects ('eat it'), another stem that takes animate objects ('eat
him'), and yet another stem that's intransitive (plain 'eat', 'dine'). Moreover, all
three stems are suppletive.

Dave C

-----Original Message-----
From: ROOD DAVID S <rood at spot.Colorado.EDU>
Sent: Apr 2, 2005 6:30 PM
To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
Subject: transitivity of eat??


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