In this article, you explained in detail multi-verb constructions in Edo with the information of argument sharing and thematic relations, which is intuitive. However, the examples you provided in TC database are all from Bini language rather than Edo. Could you add some information about the relationship between Bini and Edo? The template of constructions is confused, because the labels and the short lines between labels are unclear. Does that mean there are spaces between every morpheme? Or the tense, aspect, mood, argument sharing and verb nature are showed on one verb? Maybe you should give some introduction.
It is good that you gave examples about the three kinds of multi-verb constructions in Edo, which makes the reading easier. But the data are not enough to cover all kinds of multi-verb constructions you mentioned in your article, for example, the V + mood constructions.
In addition, there is something I don't understand.
1. Can the pattern V (P) +V (P) also be called consequential SVC or covert co-ordinate constructions?
2. Can you explain in more detail your claim that the classification of multi-verb constructions in Edo "is dependent on the distribution of the past tense suffix-rV, an infinitival marker yá, a floating anaphor tòbórè 'by him/her/itself ', VP adverbs and argument sharing patterns"?[1] By the way, I cannot find the examples with suffix -rV in TC database.
The verb with the infinitival marker yá can be found in the example below:
Òzó ̣yè èvbàré yá kòkò Àzàrí mòsè
“Ozo used food to raise Azari to be beautiful”
| èvbàré |
| èvbàré |
| foodINSTR |
| CN |
| Àzàrí |
| àzàrí |
| Azari.AFFDO |
| Np |
| mòsè |
| mòsè |
| be.beautifulPRESL |
| Vitr |
Is this the V+ infinitival complement constructions?
The floating anaphor tòbórè appears in the two examples below:
Òzó tòbọ̣̣̣̣́rè gbẹ̣̣̣̣̀n èbé khiẹ̣̣̣̣̀n
“Ozo writes and sells books byhimself”
| tòbọ̣̣̣̣́rè |
| tòbọ̣̣̣̣́rè |
| by.selv.ANA3SG |
| |
| gbẹ̣̣̣̣̀n |
| gbẹ̣̣̣̣̀n |
| writePRESL |
| Vtr |
| khiẹ̣̣̣̣̀n |
| khiẹ̣̣̣̣̀n |
| sellIVH |
| Vtr |
Òzó tòbọ̣̣̣̣́rè rhùlẹ̣̣̣̣́ -rè kpàá
“Ozo ran away”
| tòbọ̣̣̣̣́rè |
| tòbọ̣̣̣̣́rè |
| by.selv.ANA3SG |
| |
| rhùlẹ̣̣̣̣́-rè |
| rhùlẹ̣̣̣̣́ |
| run |
| Vitr |
| kpàá |
| kpàá |
| leave.V>ADV |
| ADVm |
What kind of multi-verb constructions do they belong to?
3. What's the difference between Consequential SVC and consecutive constructions?
Then, as for the different types of argument sharing, you didn’t examine your conclusion with concrete examples. And you didn't point out which exact type of multi-verb constructions the sentences with argument sharing belong to. According to Ameka's (2005) definition about overlapping constructions, "there is no overt linker between the components of overlapping constructions", and "the subject of the second clause is co-referential with the object of the first clause".[2] So I hypothesize that the multi-verb constructions with argument sharing may concern the overlapping constructions.
Finally, the title of this article is about the multi-verb constructions in Edo, but it seems that the multi-verb constructions in Edo are not focused on and much more about other Benue-Congo languages is discussed.
--Miaomiao Zhang 12:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
References
- ↑ Ota Ogie: Multi-verb constructions in Edo. http://typecraft.org/tc2wiki/Multi-verb_constructions_in_Edo.
- ↑ Ameka, Felix K. (2005) Multi-verb constructions in a West African areal typological perspective.In: Grammar and beyond: Essays in honour of Lars Hellan. Norvus. Oslo.
Help
Add this page to your book
Show book (0 pages)
Suggest pages