Cases/Adpositions
Cases/Adpositions
Given the following sentences:
1) I struck the man.
2) I yelled "Watch out!" to the man.
Is there any language where "the man" takes the same case/adposition in both sentences?
Also, given the following sentences:
3) I named the dog "Spot".
4) I told the man "No thank you.".
5) I called the man a wanker.
How would you gloss these sentences? How are these sentences usually/traditionally parsed into parts-of-speech? I want to call the first object after the verb the indirect object, but none of them can be extracted into a prep phrase, which is somewhat strange.
1) I struck the man.
2) I yelled "Watch out!" to the man.
Is there any language where "the man" takes the same case/adposition in both sentences?
Also, given the following sentences:
3) I named the dog "Spot".
4) I told the man "No thank you.".
5) I called the man a wanker.
How would you gloss these sentences? How are these sentences usually/traditionally parsed into parts-of-speech? I want to call the first object after the verb the indirect object, but none of them can be extracted into a prep phrase, which is somewhat strange.
Re: Cases/Adpositions
Well, definitely to the former - there are plenty of languages with identical case marking for direct and indirect objects. It would surprise me if there wasn't a language where 'yell' took two objects. The semantically similar 'tell' works like this in English.
As for the second set - I think the normal interpretation would be, for 3 and 5, verbs with an object and a complement (the quality the verb ascribes to its DO). 4 is slightly different - I'd say "I told you so" is just a substantivesque second direct object.
As for the second set - I think the normal interpretation would be, for 3 and 5, verbs with an object and a complement (the quality the verb ascribes to its DO). 4 is slightly different - I'd say "I told you so" is just a substantivesque second direct object.
كان يا ما كان / يا صمت العشية / قمري هاجر في الصبح بعيدا / في العيون العسلية
tà yi póbo tsùtsùr ciivà dè!
short texts in Cuhbi
Risha Cuhbi grammar
tà yi póbo tsùtsùr ciivà dè!
short texts in Cuhbi
Risha Cuhbi grammar
Re: Cases/Adpositions
But is there a language that classifies "the man" in both sentences as one type of object, and "Watch out!" as another?Well, definitely to the former - there are plenty of languages with identical case marking for direct and indirect objects.
Re: Cases/Adpositions
To borrow some examples I used in another thread... Latin treats some of these as double accusatives-- mē augurem nōmināvērunt "they named me augur", elementa eōs docēbat "he taught them the basics". This of course in a language that has a healthy dative case.
Re: Cases/Adpositions
I told the man to watch out.
I gave the man a warning.
Dialectically I have
I gave him a no-thank-you.
I gave the man a warning.
Dialectically I have
I gave him a no-thank-you.
- Drydic
- Smeric
- Posts: 1652
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 12:23 pm
- Location: I am a prisoner in my own mind.
- Contact:
Re: Cases/Adpositions
Those are not the same sentences.Manmelt wrote:I told the man to watch out.
I gave the man a warning.
You apparently have no idea what dialectally means.Dialectically I have
I gave him a no-thank-you.
- Miekko
- Avisaru
- Posts: 364
- Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 9:43 am
- Location: the turing machine doesn't stop here any more
- Contact:
Re: Cases/Adpositions
Terra,
go read on "dechticaetiativity"
As for 3) and 5), the standard analysis used in grammar in high school for me would have those consist of a direct object and an object complement ('objektpredikatsfyllnad/objektspredikativ' in Swedish).
That is, the role of 'John' in "we call him John" is similar to "red" in 'the house is red', but it pertains to the object instead of to the subject. (I hope you already know why 'red' is not an object in 'the house is red', or at least a very unusual object if it is one.)
go read on "dechticaetiativity"
As for 3) and 5), the standard analysis used in grammar in high school for me would have those consist of a direct object and an object complement ('objektpredikatsfyllnad/objektspredikativ' in Swedish).
That is, the role of 'John' in "we call him John" is similar to "red" in 'the house is red', but it pertains to the object instead of to the subject. (I hope you already know why 'red' is not an object in 'the house is red', or at least a very unusual object if it is one.)
Last edited by Miekko on Thu Sep 05, 2013 5:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
< Cev> My people we use cars. I come from a very proud car culture-- every part of the car is used, nothing goes to waste. When my people first saw the car, generations ago, we called it šuŋka wakaŋ-- meaning "automated mobile".
- Ulrike Meinhof
- Avisaru
- Posts: 267
- Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 12:31 pm
- Location: Lund
- Contact:
Re: Cases/Adpositions
This is a curious suggestion, actually. I once tried to do just that a while back when the phenomenon sparked my interest, but apart from a Wikipedia article and a handful of mentions in forums and the like, I haven't seen this term in use anywhere. Grammars and other academic literature usually talk about "primary and secondary objects", or use some other more ad hoc terminology. I've certainly never heard of a language with a "dechticaetiative case". From what I recall, how the thing functions in languages like Yoruba (IIRC?) is quite different from just throwing it into a normal IE language with a case system like Latin's; it touches on other parts of the grammar that seem more alien to an SAE speaker (I think it's usually discussed when dealing with applicative constructions, I'm sorry I can't remember the details).Miekko wrote:Terra,
go read on "dechticaetiativity"
Attention, je pelote !
- Drydic
- Smeric
- Posts: 1652
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 12:23 pm
- Location: I am a prisoner in my own mind.
- Contact:
Re: Cases/Adpositions
That's because linguists realized it was a dumbfuck term to use and started calling it secundative.
Re: Cases/Adpositions
Thank you for the terminology hints.That's because linguists realized it was a dumbfuck term to use and started calling it secundative.
The wiki page provides this revealing example:
This kind of construction works with some verbs:Code: Select all
The project provides young people with work.
Code: Select all
The project provides work to young people.
The project provides young people work.
The project provides young people with work.
The government supplies weapons to the rebels.
The government supplies the rebels weapons.
The government supplies the rebels with weapons.
It doesn't work with others:
Code: Select all
The man feeds apples to the horses.
The man feeds the horses apples.
?The man feeds the horses with apples.
The department gives free food to the students.
The department gives the students free food.
*The department gives the students with free food.
Code: Select all
The mother gives her children plenty of affection.
The mother raises her children with plenty of affection.
Anyways, this dative-shift+with seems to work with only some verbs:
Code: Select all
provide
supply
furnish
equip
arm
fit
outfit
bestow
Okay. And 4) would be an indirect object?As for 3) and 5), the standard analysis used in grammar in high school for me would have those consist of a direct object and an object complement ('objektpredikatsfyllnad/objektspredikativ' in Swedish).
I guess this makes me ask what exactly is meant by the term "indirect object". Is it purely syntactic? Or is it shorthand for "a free object (that is, one not in a prep phrase), which (usually) marks the recipient"?
It's strange that the first argument of "tell" can't be un-dative-shifted. And yet, other verbs can't be dative-shifted at all!:
Code: Select all
I spoke to him about the problem.
*I spoke him about the problem.
Code: Select all
Just say that you're too busy.
?Just say to him that you're too busy.
*Just say that you're too busy to him.
*Just say him that you're too busy.
(But: Just say "no" to drugs.)
*Just tell that you're too busy.
Just tell him that you're too busy.
This all gets even more confusing when I start thinking about light verb constructions like:
Code: Select all
Give the sled a push!
Give the lever a pull!
- Ser
- Smeric
- Posts: 1542
- Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 1:55 am
- Location: Vancouver, British Columbia / Colombie Britannique, Canada
Re: Cases/Adpositions
I'm pretty sure there's tons of verbs like those in English and Spanish...
Aliméntalo con comida especial.
/aliˈment-a=lo kon koˈmida espeˈθjal/
to.fill-2S.IMP=it with food[F].SG special.SG
Feed it special food.
Llénenlo de pintura roja.
/ˈʎen-en=lo de pinˈtuɾa ˈrox-a/
to.fill-2P.IMP=it of paint[F].SG red-F.SG
Fill it with red paint.
Cúbralo de pintura roja.
/ˈkubɾ-a=lo de pinˈtuɾa ˈrox-a/
to.cover-2S.IMP=it of paint[F].SG red-F.SG
Cover it with red paint.
It's probably quite questionable whether the thing to be covered in red paint in the last two examples is really a recipient, but I think "to fill" and "to cover" have enough "motion towards sth" for that?
Aliméntalo con comida especial.
/aliˈment-a=lo kon koˈmida espeˈθjal/
to.fill-2S.IMP=it with food[F].SG special.SG
Feed it special food.
Llénenlo de pintura roja.
/ˈʎen-en=lo de pinˈtuɾa ˈrox-a/
to.fill-2P.IMP=it of paint[F].SG red-F.SG
Fill it with red paint.
Cúbralo de pintura roja.
/ˈkubɾ-a=lo de pinˈtuɾa ˈrox-a/
to.cover-2S.IMP=it of paint[F].SG red-F.SG
Cover it with red paint.
It's probably quite questionable whether the thing to be covered in red paint in the last two examples is really a recipient, but I think "to fill" and "to cover" have enough "motion towards sth" for that?
Re: Cases/Adpositions
This bit makes me wonder what you mean by "indirect object". There are at least three levels that you might be talking about.Terra wrote:This reminds me of sentences like:But who would argue that "children" in the second sentence is an indirect object? It looks really tempting when you compare it with the provide/supply examples. I suppose that a traditionalist would describe the prep phrase as adverbial though.Code: Select all
The mother gives her children plenty of affection. The mother raises her children with plenty of affection.
1. Surface structure (which is largely where I'd expect to use the term).
2. Deep structure, or whatever the kids are calling it these days-- theta roles in G&B for instance.
3. Semantic level.
If you're bringing up a couple sentences where the semantic relationship is the same, then you're at the semantic level, and you can call the children here 'beneficiaries' or 'recipients' or something... not 'indirect objects'.
What you call things at levels 1 or 2 depends on your syntactic theory of choice... in my experience "indirect object" is mostly used as a convenient informal term... I see that Comrie has a passage arguing that there is no such thing. Anyway, if you have a more formal idea of what an indirect object is, it would be helpful to explain what you mean.
Re: Cases/Adpositions
By "indirect object", I mean a combination of syntax and semantics: an object (a noun that's not a subject and not in a prep phrase) that has recipient meaning.zompist wrote:This bit makes me wonder what you mean by "indirect object". There are at least three levels that you might be talking about.Terra wrote:This reminds me of sentences like:But who would argue that "children" in the second sentence is an indirect object? It looks really tempting when you compare it with the provide/supply examples. I suppose that a traditionalist would describe the prep phrase as adverbial though.Code: Select all
The mother gives her children plenty of affection. The mother raises her children with plenty of affection.
1. Surface structure (which is largely where I'd expect to use the term).
2. Deep structure, or whatever the kids are calling it these days-- theta roles in G&B for instance.
3. Semantic level.
If you're bringing up a couple sentences where the semantic relationship is the same, then you're at the semantic level, and you can call the children here 'beneficiaries' or 'recipients' or something... not 'indirect objects'.
What you call things at levels 1 or 2 depends on your syntactic theory of choice... in my experience "indirect object" is mostly used as a convenient informal term... I see that Comrie has a passage arguing that there is no such thing. Anyway, if you have a more formal idea of what an indirect object is, it would be helpful to explain what you mean.
I think I'll stop using it from now on. I'd rather have separate terms for syntax (object versus prep phrase) and semantics (agent, patient, etc).
What is "No thank you." in 4) if not a complement? How does one check for a complement? Is it that one can say "The dog is Spot." and "The man is a wanker.", but not "The man is no thank you."?3) I named the dog "Spot".
4) I told the man "No thank you.".
5) I called the man a wanker.