Mayan Languages

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nora C. England
Keyword(s):  
Mayan Languages ◽  
European Contact ◽  
Verbal Predicate ◽  
Agent Focus ◽  
Voiceless Stop ◽  
Transitive Verbs ◽  
Aspect Markers ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Intransitive Verbs ◽  
Organizing Principles

Mayan languages are spoken by over 5 million people in Guatemala, Mexico, Belize, and Honduras. There are around 30 different languages today, ranging in size from fairly large (about a million speakers) to very small (fewer than 30 speakers). All Mayan languages are endangered given that at least some children in some communities are not learning the language, and two languages have disappeared since European contact. Mayas developed the most elaborated and most widely attested writing system in the Americas (starting about 300 BC). The sounds of Mayan languages consist of a voiceless stop and affricate series with corresponding glottalized stops (either implosive and ejective) and affricates, glottal stop, voiceless fricatives (including h in some of them inherited from Proto-Maya), two to three nasals, three to four approximants, and a five vowel system with contrasting vowel length (or tense/lax distinctions) in most languages. Several languages have developed contrastive tone. The major word classes in Mayan languages include nouns, verbs, adjectives, positionals, and affect words. The difference between transitive verbs and intransitive verbs is rigidly maintained in most languages. They usually use the same aspect markers (but not always). Intransitive verbs only indicate their subjects while transitive verbs indicate both subjects and objects. Some languages have a set of status suffixes which is different for the two classes. Positionals are a root class whose most characteristic word form is a non-verbal predicate. Affect words indicate impressions of sounds, movements, and activities. Nouns have a number of different subclasses defined on the basis of characteristics when possessed, or the structure of compounds. Adjectives are formed from a small class of roots (under 50) and many derived forms from verbs and positionals. Predicate types are transitive, intransitive, and non-verbal. Non-verbal predicates are based on nouns, adjectives, positionals, numbers, demonstratives, and existential and locative particles. They are distinct from verbs in that they do not take the usual verbal aspect markers. Mayan languages are head marking and verb initial; most have VOA flexible order but some have VAO rigid order. They are morphologically ergative and also have at least some rules that show syntactic ergativity. The most common of these is a constraint on the extraction of subjects of transitive verbs (ergative) for focus and/or interrogation, negation, or relativization. In addition, some languages make a distinction between agentive and non-agentive intransitive verbs. Some also can be shown to use obviation and inverse as important organizing principles. Voice categories include passive, antipassive and agent focus, and an applicative with several different functions.

scholarly journals Siladang Syntax: A Study of Grammar Typology

2021 ◽  
pp. 541-549
Author(s):  
Purwanto Siwi
Keyword(s):  
Argument Structure ◽  
Prepositional Phrase ◽  
Clause Structure ◽  
Transitive Verb ◽  
Grammatical Subject ◽  
Alignment System ◽  
Verbal Predicate ◽  
Transitive Verbs ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Intransitive Verbs

The analysis of basic clause structures shows that clauses in Bahasa Siladang consist of verbal and non-verbal predication. The non-verbal predicate can be filled by an adjective, noun, numeral or prepositional phrase. The analysis of the argument structure shows that the intransitive predicate requires one NP argument as the only argument functioning as the grammatical subject, which can be an agent or a patient. Meanwhile, the transitive verb predicate requires two or more arguments. The presence of these arguments in the predicate in transitive sentences is mandatory. The conclusion from the analysis of the grammatical behavior in syntactic construction is that SL is a language which has a grammatical alignment system which gives the same treatment to A and S, and a different treatment to P. It can be categorized as an accusative language, marking the direct object of transitive verbs, making them different from the subject of both transitive and intransitive verbs. Keywords: clause structure, argument structure, syntactic typology

Transitivity and Intransitivity in English and Arabic: A Comparative Study

2015 ◽  
Vol 7 (6) ◽  
pp. 38
Author(s):  
Yasir Bdaiwi Jasim Al-Shujairi ◽  
Ahlam Muhammed ◽  
Yazan Shaker Okla Almahammed
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Descriptive Study ◽  
Transitive Verbs ◽  
Main Verb ◽  
Intransitive Verbs

<p>English and Arabic are two major languages which have many differences and similarities in grammar. One of the issues which is of great importance in the two languages is transitivity and intransitivity.  Therefore, this study compares and contrasts transitivity and intransitivity in English and Arabic. This study reports the results of the analysis of transitivity and intransitivity in the two respective languages. The current study is a qualitative one; in nature, a descriptive study. The findings showed that English and Arabic are similar in having transitive and intransitive verbs, and in having verbs which can go transitive or intransitive according to context. By contrast Arabic is different from English in its ability to change intransitive verbs into transitive ones by applying inflections on the main verb. Additionally, Arabic is different from English in the fact that some Arabic transitive verbs can take up to three objects.</p>

scholarly journals Functions of valency operators in Kamas

2016 ◽  
Vol 58 (2) ◽  
pp. 189-206
Author(s):  
Gerson Klumpp
Keyword(s):  
20Th Century ◽  
Close Contact ◽  
Early 20Th Century ◽  
Transitive Verbs ◽  
Intransitive Verbs ◽  
State Of Affairs ◽  
The One ◽  
Order Increase

AbstractThis article provides an account of the functional range of Kamas valency operators. Kamas is an extinct South Siberian language of the Samoyed branch of Uralic, which was in close contact with Turkic for many centuries. In the early 20th century, Kamas had two valency operators: (i) -Tə derived transitive from intransitive verbs as well as causative from transitive verbs; and (ii) -Ō derived intransitive from transitive verbs; in addition the intransitivizer, probably departing from pairs like edə- ‘hang up (tr.)’ > ed-ȫ- ‘hang (itr.)’, had acquired the function of specifying imperfective state-of-affairs, e.g. iʔbə- ‘lie down, lie’ > iʔb-ȫ- ‘lie’. The two markers may occur in combination in the order “increase-decrease” (-T-Ō), but not vice versa. While on the one hand the valency operators may be understood as verb derivation morphemes proper, i.e. verbs derived with the suffixes -Tə- and -Ō- are considered new lexical entries, their functional range also covers combinations with participles otherwise unspecified for voice. The valency decreaser -Ō occurs with participles of transitive verbs in order to specify P-orientation. The valency increaser -Tə has a variety of causative readings, among them causative-reflexive, causative-permissive, and causative-instrumental, and it also qualifies as a marker of control and/or characterizing activity. The discussion in this article is focused mainly on classificational issues.

scholarly journals Ad hoc properties and locations in Maltese

2015 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 64-85 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gréte Dalmi
Keyword(s):  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Semantic Theory ◽  
Alternative States ◽  
Verbal Predicate ◽  
Spatio Temporal ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Copular Sentences ◽  
Event Variable ◽  
Temporal Variable ◽  
Account Variation

This paper aims to show that the four-way BE-system of Maltese can best be accommodated in a theory of non-verbal predication that builds on alternative states, without making any reference to the Davidsonian spatio-temporal event variable. The existing theories of non-verbal predicates put the burden of explaining the difference between the ad hoc vs. habitual interpretations either solely on the non-verbal predicate, by postulating an event variable in their lexical layer (see Kratzer 1995; Adger and Ramchand 2003; Magri 2009; Roy 2013), or solely on the copular or non-copular primary predicate, which contains an aspectual operator or an incorporated abstract preposition, responsible for such interpretive differences (Schmitt 2005, Schmitt and Miller 2007, Gallego and Uriagereka 2009, 2011, Marín 2010, Camacho 2012). The present proposal combines Maienborn’s (2003, 2005a,b, 2011) discourse-semantic theory of copular sentences with Richardson’s (2001, 2007) analysis of non-verbal adjunct predicates in Russian, based on alternative states. Under this combined account, variation between the ad hoc vs. habitual interpretations of non-verbal predicates is derived from the presence or absence of a modal OPalt operator that can bind the temporal variable of non-verbal predicates in accessible worlds, in the sense of Kratzer (1991). In the absence of this operator, the temporal variable is bound by the T0 head in the standard way. The proposal extends to non-verbal predicates in copular sentences as well as to argument and adjunct non-verbal predicates in non-copular sentences.

scholarly journals AN ANALYSIS OF THE CONTENT WORDS USED IN A SCHOOL TEXTBOOK, TEAM UP ENGLISH 3, USED FOR GRADE 9 STUDENTS

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 140-153
Author(s):  
Sukontip Pijarnsarid ◽  
Prommintra Kongkaew
Keyword(s):  
School Textbook ◽  
Compound Nouns ◽  
Transitive Verbs ◽  
Intransitive Verbs

The purpose of this study were to study the content words used in a school textbook, Team Up in English 3, used for Grade 9 students and to study the frequency of content words used in a school textbook, Team Up in English 3, used for Grade 9 students. The study found that nouns is used with the highest frequency (79), followed by verb (58), adjective (46), and adverb (24).With the nouns analyzed, it was found that the Modifiers + N used with the highest frequency (92.40%), the compound nouns were ranked in second (7.59 %). Considering the verbs used in the text, it was found that transitive verbs were most commonly used (77.58%), followed by intransitive verbs (12.06%), linking verbs (10.34%). As regards the adjectives used in the text, there were 46 adjectives in total, 30 adjectives were used as attributive (65.21 %) and 16 adjectives were used as predicative (34.78%). As for the adverbs, it was found that adverbs of times were used with the highest frequency (37.5 % ), followed by the adverbs of purpose and degree (33.33%) , the adverbs of  frequency (12.5 %) , the adverbs of place  ( 8.33% ) and the adverbs of manner ( 8.33 % ).

scholarly journals Reflexive derivations in Thulung

2016 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-66 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aimée Lahaussois
Keyword(s):  
Verb Morphology ◽  
Limited Distribution ◽  
History Of ◽  
Transitive Verbs ◽  
Intransitive Verbs

Thulung Rai, an endangered Tibeto-Burman language spoken in Eastern Nepal, presents two derivational suffixes associated with reflexivization: -si and -s. The first, -si, is quite productive, found in complete paradigms, and derives reflexives, reciprocals, antipassives and anticausatives from transitive verbs (and occasionally from intransitive verbs). The second marker, -s, is more difficult to analyze: it has a limited distribution in verb paradigms, only appearing with 1pi and 3sg forms, and appears in a number of different contexts: it is found with the same types of derivations as -si but also — in some cases obligatorily, in others optionally — with verbs that do not have reflexive (or related) functions. It is even found with some transitive verbs. In this presentation, I will propose an analysis of the phenomena above based on elicited and narrative data I have collected in the field. The -s in fact has multiple, albeit related, origins: it is a phonological reduction of -si in certain circumstances, while in others it appears to be an older reflexivizing suffix which has been integrated, to different degrees, into verb morphology. With transitives, it appears to be a trace reflecting the complex derivational history of verbs which are derived from intransitives.

scholarly journals A SURVEY OF ERRORS INVOLVING JAPANESE TRANSITIVE AND INTRANSITIVE VERBS AMONG INTERMEDIATE VIETNAMESE LEARNERS - IMPLICATIONS FOR EFFECTIVE TEACHING METHODS

2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tran Thi Minh Phuong
Keyword(s):  
Effective Teaching ◽  
Real World ◽  
Teaching Methods ◽  
Negative Transfer ◽  
Passive Voice ◽  
The Real ◽  
Causative Constructions ◽  
Transitive Verbs ◽  
Word Translation ◽  
Intransitive Verbs

This study investigates the use of Japanese intransitive and transitive verbs among the Vietnamese using KY Corpus. It identifies major features of errors committed by the Vietnamese in their use of Japanese intransitive and transitive verbs, namely (1) errors due to confusion of verb transformation, which account for a high proportion; (2) errors because of the Vietnamese learners' failure in recognizing perspectives that result in construal of the real world, which may rely on the speakers' own perspective or on that of the perceived entities; (3) errors resulting from negative transfer or word-for-word translation from L1 to L2 involving the passive voice, causative constructions; and (4) errors related to the use of auxiliaries in sentences with intransitive and transitive verbs.

It’s a split, but is it unaccusativity?

2007 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 525-568
Author(s):  
Friederike Lüpke
Keyword(s):  
Intransitive Verb ◽  
Grammatical Relations ◽  
Single Argument ◽  
Transitive Verbs ◽  
Intransitive Verbs

Jalonke, a Mande language of Guinea, exhibits a formal split of intransitive verbs with respect to the possessive construction in which they appear. Whenever the single argument of a nominalized intransitive verb is linked to the possessor of the nominalized verb, an inalienable possessive construction is used with some verbs, and an alienable possessive construction with others. The inalienable possessive construction is also used for nominalized transitive verbs when possessed by their object participants, while the alienable possessive construction is used for transitive verbs possessed by their subject participants. Although synchronically not fully productive, this split points towards a diachronic explanation in terms of unaccusativity. It can be explained, however, without recurrence to different initial grammatical relations, but by relying on semantic differences only.

Passive and grammaticalization in Hausa

2000 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 235-275 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mahamane Laoualy Abdoulaye
Keyword(s):  
General Situation ◽  
Verbal Morphology ◽  
Transitive Verbs ◽  
Intransitive Verbs ◽  
Passive Verbs

Hausa uses a (...)LH-u verbal morphology to derive (i) typical passive forms with an optional intensive/completive meaning, and (ii) some non-passive verbs with an obligatory intensive meaning and which are based on intransitive verbs. After a detailed description of the two forms, I propose that originally, the (...)LH-u morphology was only applied to intransitive middle verbs to derive intensive forms. Later however, the (...)LH-u morphology was grammaticalized and applied to transitive verbs to derive passive forms. I will show that the Hausa passive has continued its grammaticalization process, weakening its intensive and stative semantics, and allowing non-patient nominals to be passive subjects. This analysis implies that previously, Hausa had no passive, and this fits with the general situation in Chadic languages where indeed passive is a rare construction.

Correlates of Ergativity in Mayan

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judith Aissen
Keyword(s):  
Central Question ◽  
External Argument ◽  
Mayan Languages ◽  
Agent Focus ◽  
Basic Facts

Since all Mayan languages are morphologically ergative, a central question concerns the role that ergativity plays in shaping the syntax. One widely accepted view is that at least those languages which exhibit constraints on the extraction of ergatives are “syntactically ergative”. Here we review the basic facts around ergative extraction in Mayan, surveying both those languages which permit it and those which do not, and identify areas of exceptionality and variation. Central to the discussion are ‘agent focus’ constructions, constructions which permit extraction of the external argument when it is blocked from a canonical transitive clause. We discuss two approaches this constellation of facts––one which holds that constraints on ergative extraction reflect syntactic ergativity and one which holds that they do not.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document