transitivity of eat??

[ROOD DAVID S]

Sorry, Pam, I was using "covert" in a non-technical way to mean the
supposed object that some people (even authors of intro lingusitics
textbooks) claim is ALWAYS there with 'eat'.  I don't think most people
would claim that 'dine' has such an object, ever.

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, Pamela Munro wrote:

> Chickasaw (and most other Muskogean) also has two 'eat' verbs,
> intransitive impa and transitive apa. (These look similar, but there is
> no regular relationship between them.) The first has one arguments, the
> second two. It's interesting how common this is!
>
> (I'm not completely sure what you mean by a "covert object", David. Is
> this an object that can appear if the speaker wishes to specify it? A
> non-agreeing object, like the patient of 'give'? Or a semantically
> implied object, if I can use that term, like what is eaten with English
> 'dine'?)
>
> Pam
>
> david costa wrote:
>
> >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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Pamela Munro,
> Professor, Linguistics, UCLA
> UCLA Box 951543
> Los Angeles, CA 90095-1543
> http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/munro/munro.htm
>
>