7

I assume, based on the your posts elsewhere, that by 'sentence parts', you are referring to grammatical relations (GRs) like subject, object, etc. In the future, it would be clearer for you to call them that, as this is the standard terminology in English. I think you are confused about argument structures and grammatical relations. Argument structures ...


4

You mix up two notions, subcategorisation and genitive objects. In the case of "need" etc. taking a genitive complement, it's just convention. In Slavic the genitive used to serve as a partitive so some verbs that frequently use partitive objects simply spread the use of the genitive to all objects. The fact that in some Slavic languages the direct object ...


4

That's correct. In English, a ditransitive verb (one that takes both a direct and an indirect object) can usually have two different word orders: S V D to I, or S V I D. In other words, "he gave the book to her", or "he gave her the book". In this case, this is the SVID order: it could be rephrased as "the school has given serious consideration to David's ...


4

Atamiri's answer provided the key term: non-canonical marking. This question is easier to investigate via that term. Googling that, I found this ebook (of a 2001 book): Non-Canonical Marking of Subjects and Objects (Typological Studies in Language) . That book helped me answer my questions substantially. Thanks Atamiri and everybody who joined in guiding ...


4

Yes, they do - in general, it’s always language-specific. There may be morphosyntactic alternations (e.g. two cases alternate depending on the governing verb’s polarity) and lexico-semantic alternations. The latter are called “non-canonical objects” (at least in Turkish). It also depends on the theory you adopt, there are direct objects, indirect objects, ...


4

I understand the question as follows: Do all (or a notable majority of) languages "with cases" make use of at least one construction for bivalent verbs where the non-subject argument is a noun phrase in a case other than the accusative, in addition to making use of the construction where the non-subject argument is a noun phrase in the accusative ...


3

Because the genitive case expresses also parts, like 'some, any'. I can give you examples from Croatian (BCMS): Popio sam vode. Drink.perf.past.masc aux.1.sg water.gen.sg I drank (some) water. Popio sam vodu. Drink.perf.past.masc aux.1.sg water.acc.sg I drank (the) water. The second sentence implies totality. You drank the water (in the glass). The first ...


2

Is it reasonable to assume that the habitual aspect in (4)-(6) contributes to licensing plural objects in these data? No. Your examples are not ungrammatical, and your question proceeds from false premises. There are counterexamples to your conjecture in other dialects of English which overtly mark habitual aspect such as AAVE, and once we show (7-9) are ...


2

In many languages, including French and English, verbs generally take zero to three nouns as "arguments". Zero: "it's raining" One: "I'm walking" Two: "I'm eating a cake" Three: "I'm giving you a cake" / "I'm giving a cake to you" Traditionally, the first argument is called the "subject", the second is the "direct object", and the third is the "indirect ...


2

Serbian has something like that, if I am understanding you right. Some Serbian intransitive sentences can still have dative, genitive and/or locative arguments; an example for this would be она му[D] прича (о кући)[L] (she is telling him about the house) where there's both a dative listener му (to him) and a locative topic о кући (about the house). We are ...


1

Your definition is faulty - it is a coalescence of two different possible meanings of "object". If you accept the phrase "Object of a preposition" (not all accounts of grammar do) then the definition "that receives an action in a sentence" doesn't apply to it: you would need to distinguish "object of a verb" (or "of the sentence") from "object of a ...


1

The comments reflect the complexity of "there" subjects, and I'm fairly certain that jlawler can fill us in on previous work on the topic. I will just long-comment on data problems. First, 'there' can be a deictic or a dummy (the former exemplified by "There is the remote, here is the TV", meaning "over yonder"; the latter by "There's a monkey in the garden")...


1

'The man' in your sentence is not an object, since 'to be' cannot have objects at all, neither direct objects, nor indirect ones. In your sentence 'the man' is the subject of the sentence, and, naturally, the verb agrees with it. That kind of a sentence, with 'there is / there are' construction has a reverse word order, 'there' being the marker of the ...


1

Latin uti "to use" takes an ablative complement: aratro utor "I am using a plow".


1

You'll need a parser to identify objects automatically. There are a few online interfaces to natural language parsers. For example, you could use the Stanford parser (link) and look for "dobj" to find direct objects.


1

I would not call this object-agreement because (to my knowledge) it also holds for non-object relative clauses, such as adverbial relative clauses (but not for subject-relative clauses, as I'm sure you're aware). It is simply an agreement marker that displays the person and number of the subject. Question 1: I don't know any other examples of other ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible