argument structure k'u etc.

[Koontz John E]

On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, ROOD DAVID S wrote:
> can you provide a possible example from English or some other language
> you know?

The only thing I can think of is epche 'I think' (Boas & Deloria
1941:102), but that a first person singular only, and the -p- is clearly
pronominal, at least in comparative terms.  Off hand, the patterns of
defective verb I can recall from anywhere are all matters of missing
tense/aspect forms or missing persons.

I checked for some tace of this possibility in Bruce Ingham's Laokota
Grammar without finding anything, either.

> back checking with Buechel indicates that it's used for grain springing
> up, and then the sentence example he gives is "tokiyatanhan uya hwo?"
> which he glosses 'where does the wind come from?' -- so I'm very confused,
> but maybe "uya" is a candidate.

Sounds like a parallel of or calque from the English pattern "whence
springs ..."  I think this may have more to do with 'spring' in the sense
of origin than of leaping, though it's ambiguous in Emglish.

> 	More important, perhaps, is some agreement about what we mean by
> "argument".

Yes - it seems like this is more a matter of difference in terminology
than a disagreeement on phenomena.

> I intended my "marked on the verb" definition to be Lakhota-specific; I
> think you have to find criteria for grammatical argument status one
> language at a time.

My impression is that the terminological issue would apply across Siouan,
including the relatively different Crow-Hidatsa and Southeastern branches,
but I wouldn't care to clain that treatment of non-indexed arguments (or
whateve rthe term ought to be) would be the same.  On the other hand, I
have the impression that non-indexed arguments arise in non-Siouan
languages in the area, including Algonquian and Muskogean.

> I have no objection to claims that the logical structure of 'give'
> universally includes three entities, but I do object to the hypothesis
> that the recipient is in some sense "secondary" or "indirect" in all
> languages.

Agreed.  This definitely doesn't seem to work for Dakotan or Dhegiha.

> Given that _k'u_ can take only two affixes at most, and that
> one is the giver and the other the recipient, I still claim that the
> third "entity" involved is not part of the core argument structure of
> this verb in this language.

Everything here turns on the definition of core argument.  I don't know of
any arguments that the patient of k?u (or ?i, in OP) is core beyond the
fact that it can occur, e.g.,

JOD 1890:75.11-12
hiN, s^ikkaN', wiN           aNdha?i=    tte=     daN
oh   bro-wif   one (raccoon) you give me IRREALIS CONTINGENT
Oh! sister-in-law, would you give me one (of the raccons)?

JOD 1890:87.15
z^iNdhe'=ha, s^aN'ge wiN wi?i'
eBro     VOC horse   a   I give you
Brother, I am giving you a horse.

In both cases, of course, the recipient is the form indexes with what I
usually call the the patient marker:  aN 'me' in the first case, and wi
(like Da c^hi) indexes first person agent and second person patient.

By the way, I've just noticed OP gi'?i 'to give back'~

> 	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.

I don't know if I'd say that English 'eat' is always transitive.  I sort
of assume it can be either, and is intransitive if there is no expressed
object (unless gapping or something like it applies).  I'm not so sure
about OP dhathe or Dakota yuta.  They might always be transitive.

Looking for OP ?i 'give' wihtout expressed non-indexed patients, I've
found

JOD 1890:109.19-110.1
wappe'=khe iN'was^ta=m=az^i  e'=d=e=gaN s^aN wi?i'=        tta=miNkhe ha
weapon the I cannot spare it "but"      yet  I give you it IRR AUX    DEC
I can't spare the weapon, but I will give it to you.

Although wi?i' agrees with the recipient, it appears to be possible to gap
the patient 'the weapon' across the two clauses.  That is, there's nothing
explicit in the verb that indicates the patient 'it', and there's no
independent form indicating it either.  As far as the conjunction "but"
here, there are a variety of forms in e'=de that Dorsey renders "but,"
this one being e'=de plus e'gaN, the subordinating conjunction, which
works somewhat like a conjunct mode in Algonquian, I think.  Usually
Dorsey translates egaN as "having."  I think indicates that the preceding
thing renders the next one surprising.  It's more like English 'though'
than English 'but'.

Maybe a better parallel in construction would be:

Though being unable to spare the weapon, yet I will give you it.

Interestingly, I would much prefer to say 'give it to you' in English,
perhaps because the focus here is clearly the weapon.

JEK