argument structure k'u etc.

[Koontz John E]

On Sat, 2 Apr 2005, ROOD DAVID S wrote:
> English, "put", e.g., requires a locative (you can't just "put
> something").  Does that mean that the locative is an argument of that
> verb?  Or is the absence of prepositional marking part of the
> prerequisite for calling something an argument?

My inclination on this is that a required locative is indeed an argument,
while an optional one is not.  I think this amounts to Filmore's
distinction of between central and peripheral obliques.  This is the point
at which many languages incorporate the adposition into the verb.  I think
it's also the one at which Siouan languages often allow indexing of the
argument governed by a locative prefix, e.g.,

JOD 1890:61.6
aNdhaNna?u    (i'..na?u 'pass close to')
i-aN -na?u
pass close to me (IMP)

JOD 1890:165.11
aNdhaNdhikkaN  (i'..kkaN 'to contend with')
aN-i-dhi-kkaN
we contend with you

However, for what it's worth, locations don't seem to be mandatory with OP
'to put' forms, which may be one reason they have the alternate reading
'to put away'.

> Bob's comment about the Dryer "primary/secondary" argument typology is
> relevant, except that Lak. has a very robust "dative case" that it can and
> does utilize quite often to show "secondary" argument (i.e. obliquely
> marked) status for recipients and beneficiaries.

It was definitely Dryer's article I was remembering:

DRYER, MATTHEW S. Primary objects, secondary objects, and antidative.
Language 62.808.45 (1986).

> I have somehow internalized the idea that Dryer's theory is a typology
> of systems (some languages do it one way, some the other), not a
> variable for individual verbs.  ...

That's what I recall, too.