| Voice marking | Proper marker | yes | Intransitiviser suffix -a (Terrill 2003: 363)
There is a suffix -a which appears on transitive verbs and intransitivises them (...). When the Intransitiviser suffix is used on transitive verbs, there are two possibilities. Either the subject (A) of the transitive verb corresponds in semantic role to the sole argument of the intransitivised verb (S), or the object (O) argument does (Terrill 2003: 362).
The suffix -a, although it has different uses on transitive versus intransitive verbs, seems to have a common functional core. On transitive verbs its function is to reduce the syntactic transitivity of the verb on which it appears (Terrill 2003: 363).
When the Intransitiviser suffix -a is used on transitive verbs, there are two possibilities. Either the subject (A) of the transitive verb corresponds in semantic role to the sole argument of the intransitivised verb (S), or the object (O) argument does (Terrill 2003: 362).
There is a suffix -a which appears on transitive verbs and intransitives them. It can also appear on intransitive verbs to give them an iterative or intensified meaning. This suffix is rare; it occurs on only a handful of verbs in the corpus (Terrill 2003: 362).
@It is similar to Bezhta (KJ). |
| Voice marking | Lookalike marker | no | |
| Voice marking | Synthetic marker | yes | Intransitiviser suffix -a (Terrill 2003: 363).
There is a suffix -a which appears on transitive verbs and intransitivises them (...). When the Intransitiviser suffix is used on transitive verbs, there are two possibilities. Either the subject (A) of the transitive verb corresponds in semantic role to the sole argument of the intransitivised verb (S), or the object (O) argument does (Terrill 2003: 362).
The suffix -a, although it has different uses on transitive versus intransitive verbs, seems to have a common functional core. On transitive verbs its function is to reduce the syntactic transitivity of the verb on which it appears (Terrill 2003: 363). |
| Voice marking | Analytical marker | no | |
| Flagging | S-argument flagging | no | Lavukaleve has no case marking for core argument roles, but pronominal verb prefixes are marked for grammatical relations (Terrill 2003: 226-227).
The encoding of primary arguments in the Papuan language Lavukaleve does not proceed on the arguments themselves (via Case-marking), but on the verb (via agreement marking) (Hamann 2010: 197). |
| Flagging | P-oblique flagging | yes | FYI: Here note the P (‘fokosu la’) is expressed obliquely in a PP (personal communication with Angela Terrill, June 30, 2023). |
| Flagging | P-oblique unflagging | yes | (Terrill 2003: 510)
Ali otalai ali otalai okariom
ali o-talai ali o-talai aka-ri-om
man 3sg.poss-equal.share man 3sg.poss-equal.share then-psnv-mn
meariare.
mean-a-re
count-intr-nf
‘They counted out each man’s share.’
|
| Flagging | P-oblique flagging variation | no | |
| Indexation | S-argument indexed | yes | The expression of subject arguments by affixation is a matter of some complexity; in some constructions, subject affixes must appear, in some they cannot appear, and in some they are optional. In cosubordinate
clauses (...) the subject cannot be expressed by an affix on the predicate. In sentence-focus clauses a subject affix must appear on the predicate (...). In adverbial subordinate clauses, subjects must be expressed by affixation (...). In all other cases, a subject affix may appear on the predicate, but it is optional. In all of these cases, whether or not a subject affix appears on the predicate, an overt noun phrase referring to the subject may
occur (Terrill 2003: 232).
Intransitive verbs take one argument, expressed as a verbal affix and/or noun phrase (Terrill 2003: 46).
Cross-reference & Agreement:
Intransitive verbs mark their subject:
(a) with a cross-referencing prefix if the predicate is to be interpreted with an active meaning, or
(b) the Agreement Suffix if the predicate is to have a stative/resultative meaning (Terrill 2003: 245).
Cross-referencing:
In most clause types, subject arguments are not obligatorily expressed, either by overt noun phrases or cross-referencing prefixes (Terrill 2003: 46).
Agreement suffix:
The Agreement Suffix is used as the marker of an argument of a predicate in certain grammatical environments:
(a) it is used to mark the sole argument of a stative or resultative intransitive predicate when not in a focus construction (Terrill: 2003: 251).
Cross-reference vs. Agreement: The Agreement Suffix is used on independent intransitive predicates to crossreference the subject in a stative or resultative clause. Subjects of intransitive predicates in independent active clauses (where 'active' means nonstative/ resultative) are cross-referenced by subject prefixes from the verbal subject prefix paradigm (Terrill 2003: 261). |
| Indexation | S-argument indexation conditioned | yes | The expression of subject arguments by affixation is a matter of some complexity; in some constructions, subject affixes must appear, in some they cannot appear, and in some they are optional. In cosubordinate
clauses (...) the subject cannot be expressed by an affix on the predicate. In sentence-focus clauses a subject affix must appear on the predicate (...). In adverbial subordinate clauses, subjects must be expressed by affixation (...). In all other cases, a subject affix may appear on the predicate, but it is optional. In all of these cases, whether or not a subject affix appears on the predicate, an overt noun phrase referring to the subject may occur (Terrill 2003: 232).
Intransitive verbs take one argument, expressed as a verbal affix and/or noun phrase (Terrill 2003: 46).
|
| P-individuation properties | Incorporated P is generic (non-specific) | n/a | |
| P-individuation properties | Incorporated P is indefinite (non-specific) | n/a | |
| P-individuation properties | Incorporated P can be referential | n/a | |
| P-individuation properties | Oblique is generic (non-specific) | no | |
| P-individuation properties | Oblique is indefinite (non-specific) | no | |
| P-individuation properties | Oblique can be referential | yes | (Data from Angela Terrill, 30 June 2023, pers. comm.)
Talio la fokosu la ona
talio la fokosu la o-na
cable sg.f.art tree.stump sg.f.art 3sg.f.obj-in
raoare fi olei.
rao-a-re fi o-lei
surround-intr-nf 3sg.n.foc 3sg.sbj-exist
‘The rope is around the tree stump.’
- (rao ‘surround’ VTR) A-> S.
- the P (‘fokosu la’) is expressed obliquely in a PP.
|
| P-individuation properties | Eliminated P is generic (non-specific) | yes | |
| P-individuation properties | Eliminated P is indefinite (non-specific) | yes | (Terrill 2003: 71)
Velanun lai ga hoare evoge
vela-nun lai ga hoa-re e-e-vo-ge
go-dur rain(n) sg.n.art poke.through-nf 3sg.n.obj-sbd-come-ant
ini ukeare lo.
ini ukea-re lo
act come.close-nf finish
‘It went on, and the rain started falling, it up and came close.’
|
| P-individuation properties | Eliminated P can be referential | no | P omission (Ambitransitive)
FYI: Ambitransitive verbs can take either one or two arguments, with no overt valency-changing morpheme, to mark the change of transitivity (though the appearance of object affixation makes the transitivity clear) (Terrill 2003: 45). @The cross-referencing of P implies its referentiality. The lack of it cancels it (KJ). |
| Oblique affectedness | Less affected oblique | no | |
| P-constraining properties | Animacy constrains oblique demotion | no | |
| P-constraining properties | Person constrains oblique demotion | no | |
| P-constraining properties | Number constrains oblique demotion | no | |