transitivity with eat/argument structure k'u etc.

["Alfred W. Tüting"]

> (David) 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 (and all participants of this thread), thanks for your highly
interesting contributions that actually are shedding light on this quite
complicated issue.

As for 'dine' (German: 'dinieren'), I don't think so! Same with German
'kneipen' ('Korpsstudenten'-Slang), 'bechern', 'zechen' - to booze.

BTW, the 'to put' example's interesting: I don't think that the locative
is 'core' argument here. What's about a verb 'put in/on/out etc.'? In
German 'hineinlegen' (hinein legen?, ~ geben/tun), e.g. "Ich lege es
hinein" (I put it in): uttering smth. like this, one, of course, does
have smth. locative in mind, yet I don't think the 'place' is anything
more than 'semantic background'. This seems to hold even more for verbs
like 'einlegen' (e.g. a sheet of paper into a book/pile of papers etc.
or gherkins/mixed pickles into a jar etc.): In a sentence like "Ich lege
Gurken ein" the vessel (jar/glass) is about as 'immanent' as 'sunka
(wakan)' in Lak. sentences of the kind "Wanna mitawa kin tehiya waku
welo" - Now I've come home with my (horse) with great difficulty - or
"Tawa kin hena luzahanpi" - Their (horses) are fast, and still, the
locative doesn't appear to be an argument.

Thanks again.



Alfred