5,518
edits
Nankôre: Difference between revisions
m
→Intransitive-Active Paradigm
(Updating infobox) |
|||
| Line 1,641: | Line 1,641: | ||
=====Intransitive-Active Paradigm ===== | =====Intransitive-Active Paradigm ===== | ||
The paradigm for the auxiliary with intransitive verbs is not as elaborate as its transitive counterpart, nevertheless it still displays a great deal of complexity. | The paradigm for the ''itá'' auxiliary with intransitive verbs is not as elaborate as its transitive counterpart, nevertheless it still displays a great deal of complexity. As in the transitive paradigm, an Agent is required as a core argument, but unlike the transitive paradigm, the ''ta-'' inverse marker never appears in the Intransitive-Active paradigm. | ||
This use of the ''itá'' auxiliary demonstrates an underlying split intransitive morphosyntactic alignment, specifically of the Split-S subtype: only verbs that indicate agency can license the ''itá'' auxiliary, whilst non-volitional verbs are restricted to the ''iná'' auxiliary. | |||
<!-- | <!-- | ||
There is no overt marking on either the main verb or the auxiliary indicating that the NP is an Agent or Patient. Instead, there are intransitive verbs that take only Agents as their core argument, e.g. ''temen'' "to walk downstream" [Agent] vs ''oacir'' "to be carried downriver" [Patient]. The semantic properties of the main verb, rather than morphology, indicate the proper meaning. | There is no overt marking on either the main verb or the auxiliary indicating that the NP is an Agent or Patient. Instead, there are intransitive verbs that take only Agents as their core argument, e.g. ''temen'' "to walk downstream" [Agent] vs ''oacir'' "to be carried downriver" [Patient]. The semantic properties of the main verb, rather than morphology, indicate the proper meaning. | ||