Warning: getimagesize(3076): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/vhosts/martijnstadhouders.com/httpdocs/wp-content/themes/travis/header-grid.php on line 60
Agreement Have A Suffix

In the rest of this section, which represents the work in progress, we would like to briefly look at cases of oblique concordance with intransitive stems. Examples of oblique match with non-independence strains differ from the examples described above in three respects, which we note below. Given the differences, we leave open in this paper the question of whether or not our analysis should extend to these cases, but in section 4.4, we briefly discuss a way to refine the theory to take into account non-performing cases. In Section 4, we provided evidence that the determination of accepting it from a particular verb with a central inclination or argument requires a reference to contextual or discourse factors, and we loosely identified an interaction between “thematic celebrity” and a hierarchy of people as relevant factors. One observation that we consider important is that Itelmen differs from chuks and alutor by the fact that the variation in the concordance between an oblique position and a central argument in the telmens is not strictly determined either by the hierarchy of people, nor by the thematic role, nor by the grammatical function. Thus, in Itelmen, but apparently not in the chukchen, we find the apparent optionality (i.e. from the morphosytic point of view) of minimal pairs such as (1) where the syntax can be kept constant, but the morphology can vary. Here are some specific cases for the verb-subject chord in English: apparently, this gives rise to a multiple exposure appearance. The characteristics of the pattern are expressed simultaneously by a prefix and a suffix. In our analysis, the main exponent of the characteristics of the theme is always the prefix. The appearance of the characteristics of the subject that condition the shape of the suffix in (11) (13) is secondary, in the sense that the characteristics are copied from a higher position.

This approach for direct objects of the third person predicts (all other equals) that whenever there are no person characteristics of a direct object in the mandatory suffix slot, the subject`s characteristics will be copied in this way. This approach leads directly to a representation of the apparent “absolute” bias of the suffix system. Intransiation clauses, by definition, lack (direct) objects; Therefore, the subject`s characteristics must be copied to fill the suffix line. However, unlike the forms in (13), in the inexitative suffixes (7), even the numerical characteristics expressed are those of the subject, since there is no object to provide them. For example- ki`e`n (with a definitive, glottalized n) marks in the intransmitterers the plurality of the subject of the first person, while the same form in the transitive paradigm (Class II) marks the plurality of the object and only indicates about that it is the first person. If the direct and indirect objects are [the two 3 people], then the verb is consistent [in number -B-W] with its direct object.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.