Difference between revisions of "Multiverbs and Complex Predicates"
Lars Hellan (Talk | contribs) |
Lars Hellan (Talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
For MVCs, a first set of salient examples includes, | For MVCs, a first set of salient examples includes, | ||
| − | from Bangla (Bengali): | + | (1) from Bangla (Bengali): |
<Phrase>10616</Phrase> | <Phrase>10616</Phrase> | ||
| − | from Akan: | + | (2) from Akan: |
<Phrase>2734</Phrase> | <Phrase>2734</Phrase> | ||
| − | + | (3) from Kistaninya (Kistane): | |
<Phrase>10697</Phrase> | <Phrase>10697</Phrase> | ||
They have in common the expression of temporally successive events, patterns of argument and tense/aspect sharing, and lack of coordinating items, which is held as typical of 'serial verb' constructions. But they also differ in some respects: | They have in common the expression of temporally successive events, patterns of argument and tense/aspect sharing, and lack of coordinating items, which is held as typical of 'serial verb' constructions. But they also differ in some respects: | ||
Revision as of 19:40, 18 December 2009
Edited by Gautam Sengupta and Lars Hellan
This page is an attempt at classifying cross-linguistically a variety of types falling under the categories 'multiverb constructions' (MVC) and 'complex predicates' (CP).
For MVCs, a first set of salient examples includes,
(1) from Bangla (Bengali):
| ami |
| ami |
| 1SG |
| PN |
| baRi |
| baRi |
| home |
| N |
| gie | |
| gi | e |
| go | CMPL |
| V | |
| bhat |
| bhat |
| rice |
| N |
| khee | |
| khe | e |
| eat | CMPL |
| V | |
| ghumabo | ||
| ghuma | bo | |
| sleep | ||
| V | ||
(2) from Akan:
| Ama |
| ama |
| AmaSBJAGT |
| Np |
| tɔɔ | |
| tɔ | ɔ |
| buy | COMPL |
| Vtr | |
| adanko |
| adanko |
| rabbit.AFFDO |
| CN |
| dwaree | |
| dware | e |
| bath | COMPL |
| Vtr | |
| no |
| no |
| AFFDO3SG |
| PN |
| yεnn | |
| yεn | n |
| rear | COMPL |
| Vtr | |
| no |
| no |
| AFFDO3SG |
| PN |
(3) from Kistaninya (Kistane):
| kas:a |
| kas:a |
| Kassa |
| N |
| təkətəmay;ən | ||
| tə | kətəma | y;ən |
| town | ||
| N | ||
| aləfəm | ||
| aləf | ə | m |
| go | 3PMASCSGSM | CV |
| V1 | ||
| ləb:aš |
| ləb:aš |
| cloth |
| N |
| wajjəm | ||
| wajj | ə | m |
| buy | 3PMASCSGSM | CV |
| V2 | ||
| ət’t’aw | ||
| mət’t’ | a | w |
| come | 3PMASCSGSM | MAVM |
| V3 | ||
They have in common the expression of temporally successive events, patterns of argument and tense/aspect sharing, and lack of coordinating items, which is held as typical of 'serial verb' constructions. But they also differ in some respects:
In Bangla and Kistaninya, the last verb in the series has a different form than the preceding verbs, whereas in Akan they all have the same form. Although Bangla and Kistaninya have in common being 'verb last' languages, so that the last verb may be counted as being head of the constructions in question, and in Akan it is perhaps V1 which is head, that factor does not explain the difference in form between head and non-heads. Thus, we have to recognize the distinguishing factor I.1 below.
On the other hand, in Bangla only the last verb has a finite form, while the others are in an aspectually completive form. In contrast, in Kistaninya, all the verbs are finite; in this respect they are like in Akan, except for the special added suffix in all the non-final verbs. This has to be counted as a distinguishing factor I.2:
I.1. In the Akan example all verbs are in the same form, whereas in the Bangla and Kistaninya examples, the non-final verbs share a formative absent in the last verb.
I.2. In the Akan and Kistaninya examples, all verbs are finite, whereas in the Bangla example, only the last verb is finite.
'I' here means a property relating to the temporally consecutive kind of serial construction.