LINGUIST List 7.1029

Mon Jul 15 1996

Disc: trans/intr verb pairs

Editor for this issue: T. Daniel Seely <dseelyemunix.emich.edu>


Directory

  1. Hideo Fujii, Correction/Addition: trans/intr verb pairs

Message 1: Correction/Addition: trans/intr verb pairs

Date: Sat, 13 Jul 1996 19:26:16 EDT
From: Hideo Fujii <fujiimackay.cs.umass.edu>
Subject: Correction/Addition: trans/intr verb pairs
Dear LINGUISTs,

After I posted my summary of contributor's responses to my inquiry about 
the trans/intr verb pairs, I received several comments : 

<Correction>
 --on Finish by Norbert Strade <nostling.hum.aau.dk>
 Vt: MUUTTA(a) // Vi: MUUTT{A}-u(a) "-u" is a reflexive (derivational) marker
 which erase {A} in the stem, so *muuttuaa doesn't exist.
 This is my mistake, not of the contributor. I apologize for this matter.

<Addendum>
 --on Korean by Jee-Hong KIM <jhongkimnongae.ac.kr>
 Vt: PHWUL(ta) // Vi: PHWUL-li(ta) (to solve [problems] vs becomming fine 
 as with CAUSATIVE marker)
 Vi: KOL(ta) // Vi: KOL-li(ta) (to call someone vs being caught as by a 
 PASSIVE marker)
 "Korean does not have unique suffixes to designate a transitive verbs 
 from an intransitive."

 --on Arabic by Dave Harris <dharrislas-inc.com>
 as a non-concatenative language for verbal derivation with its 
 triconsonantal roots such as:
 KaTaB (to write) vs KaTTaB (CAUSATIVE to make someone to write)
 According to Dave, it's a derivational change.

Related to the distinction between inflection and derivation, I attach my 
answer to Stavros Macrakis' <macrakisosf.org> question. This is my best 
so far to say...
>> About your question for OR-u/OR-eru pair as a result of derivation - 
>> In essence, the reason is that this pair making construction is not 
>> an obligational for every verb unlike it should be in inflectional 
>> constructs. These are also other characteristics such that: i) it changes 
>> the (sub-)category; ii) irregularity of pattern is prominent - compared 
>> to other conjugational changes. In Japanese, there are causative/passive 
>> morphemes which can be a functional head in the syntax of a sentence [
>> note: i.e. -(sa)seru/-(ra)reru]. These are different kinds from ones 
>> for in/transitive pairs.

- Hideo Fujii
 Computer Science Dept.
 University of Massachusetts
 at Amherst
Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue