argument structure k'u etc.

["Alfred W. Tüting"]

> (David) Sigh.  I'd like the question about "?wawak'u" 'give stuff to
people' asked.  But it's not going to be so simple.  I just looked in
Buechel, and discovered that the verb for 'make donations' is wawicak'u
(...).  If that's what I think it, is, then "wa" is replacing the thing
I'm calling the adjunct, or the semantic patient, since "wicha", because
it's animate, has to be standing in for the recipient(s).  Now, in a
sense, we do have all 3 participants indexed on the verb. <<


This is a very nice example, yet, I seem to be a bit thick-witted -
sorry! You create a hypothetical model of k'u -> wak'u -> wawak'u (with
the last one kind of meaning ?wawa-ma-k'u - I'm a giver of donations/I'm
big-hearted/generous) to gain evidence that with two valences reduced
and one still existent, the initial _k'u_ must have had three valences
in total, okay? The one still left is pointing to the 'subject'
(semantically speaking, the 'giver'), so one of the two other valences
must have been that of the 'receiver'.
Now, you actually find a somewhat different form with (almost) exactly
this 'selbri' (argument structure), albeit one _wa-_ 'replaced' by
_-wica-_ [wicha'] (which doesn't matter since - referring to humans -
_-wica-_ has the same 'generic' function as _wa-_). That exactly was
what we were looking for in order to give evidence for three markable
arguments of the verb _k'u_. Shouldn't we be happy?! :))

(BTW, I'd still be eager to hear your opinions on B. Ingham's examples
of "I gave you to them (in marriage)" etc.)


Alfred