Talk:Multi-verb constructions in Edo
Dear Ota,
In this article, you explained in detail multi-verb constructions in Edo with the information of argument sharing and thematic relations, which is intuitive. However, the examples you provided in TC database are all from Bini language rather than Edo. Could you add some information about the relationship between Bini and Edo? The template of constructions is confused, because the labels and the short lines between labels are unclear. Does that mean there are spaces between every morpheme? Or the tense, aspect, mood, argument sharing and verb nature are showed on one verb? Maybe you should give some introduction.
It is good that you gave examples about the three kinds of multi-verb constructions in Edo, which makes the reading easier. But the data are not enough to cover all kinds of multi-verb constructions you mentioned in your article, for example, the V + mood constructions.
In addition, there is something I don't understand.
1. Could the pattern V (P) +V (P) also be called consequential SVC or covert co-ordinate constructions?
2. Could you explain in more detail your claim that the classification of multi-verb constructions in Edo "is dependent on the distribution of the past tense suffix-rV, an infinitival marker yá, a floating anaphor tòbórè 'by him/her/itself ', VP adverbs and argument sharing patterns"?[1] By the way, the verb with the infinitival marker yá can be found in the example below:
| Òzó |
| òzó |
| OzoSBJAGT |
| Np |
| ̣yè |
| ̣yè |
| usePRESL |
| V |
| èvbàré |
| èvbàré |
| foodINSTR |
| CN |
| yá |
| yá |
| INF |
| kòkò |
| kòkò |
| raisePRES |
| Vtr |
| Àzàrí |
| àzàrí |
| Azari.AFFDO |
| Np |
| mòsè |
| mòsè |
| be.beautifulPRESL |
| Vitr |
Is this the V+ infinitival complement constructions?
And the floating anaphor tòbórè appears in the two examples below:
| Òzó |
| òzó |
| OzoSBJAGT |
| Np |
| tòbọ̣̣̣̣́rè |
| tòbọ̣̣̣̣́rè |
| by.selv.ANA3SG |
| gbẹ̣̣̣̣̀n |
| gbẹ̣̣̣̣̀n |
| writePRESL |
| Vtr |
| èbé |
| èbé |
| bookDOTH |
| CN |
| khiẹ̣̣̣̣̀n |
| khiẹ̣̣̣̣̀n |
| sellIVH |
| Vtr |
| Òzó |
| òzó |
| OzoSBJAGT |
| Np |
| tòbọ̣̣̣̣́rè |
| tòbọ̣̣̣̣́rè |
| by.selv.ANA3SG |
| rhùlẹ̣̣̣̣́-rè |
| rhùlẹ̣̣̣̣́ |
| run |
| Vitr |
| rè |
| PASTRT |
| kpàá |
| kpàá |
| leave.V>ADV |
| ADVm |
What kind of multi-verb constructions do they belong to?
As for the suffix -rV, I didn't find the relevant examples in TC database.
3. What's the difference between Consequential SVC and consecutive constructions?
Then, as for the different types of argument sharing, you didn’t examine your conclusion with concrete examples. And you didn't point out which exact type of multi-verb constructions the sentences with argument sharing belong to. According to Ameka's (2005) definition about overlapping constructions, "there is no overt linker between the components of overlapping constructions", and "the subject of the second clause is co-referential with the object of the first clause".[2] So I hypothesize that the multi-verb constructions with argument sharing may concern the overlapping constructions.
Finally, the title of this article is about the multi-verb constructions in Edo, but it seems that the multi-verb constructions in Edo are not focused on and much more about other Benue-Congo languages is discussed.
Anyway, I have learned a lot about the multi-verb constructions from your page and I think it would be helpful for the conception of my master thesis concerning the Serial Verb constructions (SVC)in Chinese Mandarin.
--Miaomiao Zhang 12:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
References
- ↑ Ota Ogie: Multi-verb constructions in Edo. http://typecraft.org/tc2wiki/Multi-verb_constructions_in_Edo.
- ↑ Ameka, Felix K. (2005) Multi-verb constructions in a West African areal typological perspective.In: Grammar and beyond: Essays in honour of Lars Hellan. Norvus. Oslo.
In this work, the author makes efforts to make her work as clear as possible by the provision of the template which provides information about global labels, the number of verbs in series, argument sharing information, information about thematic relations holding across the verb in series, information about Tense Aspect, Mood, Negation, valence information as well as information about grammatical function and information about the situation type of the construction. This effort must be complemented
The author also tries to build on already existing information instead of “reinventing the wheel.” This effort ensures consistency in the study of linguistics and avoids the situations where the same phenomenon is called differently by different linguist. This too is an effort in the right direction.
She also introduces new labels for those concepts that the already existing labels do not take care of. What makes this more interesting is that she makes an extra effort to explain them.
However the mention of SVCs as among the type of multi-verb constructions that “need not bear one/same marking for tense, aspect, mood” seem to be in contradiction with Bodomo’s findings about SCVs in Dagaare. In his work, Bodomo outlines five constraints for SVCs among which is the;
“The TAP constraint” (all the verbs must have the same tense aspect and polarity) Bodomo (1997) which seam to differ from the case in Edo.
Also the claim that SVCs need not share object is against Bodomo’s “The object sharing constraint” (the verbs must share a common object) Bodomo (1997)
It is however important to add that this may very well not be a contradiction since they are different languages. --Bodua-Mango Kennth 09:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)