Re: languages without verbs?
- From: Nathan Sanders <nsanders.DIE.SPAM@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 19:32:14 GMT
In article <42f1100f$0$726$5fc3050@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Artem Baguinski <artm@xxxxx> wrote:
> Does the fact that SEESKI expresses the relation between a subject and
> an object makes it a verb?
Should it? There are verbs in English that don't express a relation
between a subject and (exactly one) object---verbs such as hand, ache,
and rain---but they certainly pattern like other verbs: they take
verbal morphology (-s, -ing, -(e)d), they occupy slots in sentences
where only other verbs can exist (e.g., after modals), etc.
> Even though morphologically it looks just
> like the adjective WOODSKI?
You're confusing function and form.
Whether a word is a verb depends on how you want to define "verb". Is
a word a verb because of its semantic/relational properties (its
function), or because of its morphosyntactic properties (its form)?
Personally, I'd go the morphosyntactic route for defining verbs. The
data is usually clearer (modulo irregular morphology), and it doesn't
require worrying about murky questions like what is *the* object in "I
handed him a book", whether there is an unexpressed object in "I am
aching", or whether the "it" in "it will rain" is a true subject or
not.
Nathan
--
Nathan Sanders
Linguistics Program nsanders@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Williams College http://wso.williams.edu/~nsanders
Williamstown, MA 01267
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: languages without verbs?
- From: Artem Baguinski
- Re: languages without verbs?
- References:
- languages without verbs?
- From: Artem Baguinski
- Re: languages without verbs?
- From: Ruud Harmsen
- Re: languages without verbs?
- From: Artem Baguinski
- languages without verbs?
- Prev by Date: Re: TH
- Next by Date: Re: Sob, it's true about uvular R
- Previous by thread: Re: languages without verbs?
- Next by thread: Re: languages without verbs?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|