Editor for this issue: T. Daniel Seely <dseely
emunix.emich.edu>
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 <nostMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issueling.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 <jhongkim
nongae.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 <dharris
las-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' <macrakis
osf.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