Transitive verbs with non-accusative alternation in ... - Pluto Huji Ac Il

86
Rivka Halevy
between the A and the O, e.g. šavar ‘break’ in (51), haras ‘ruin’ in (52) and
‘iqem ‘distort’ in (53):
(51) ??hu’ šavar ‘ota ba-'etsba'
he broke OM-her on-the-finger
(52) ??hu’ haras 'ota ba-gav
he ruined OM-her on-the-back
(53) ??hu’ 'iqem 'oti ba-'etsba’
he bent OM-me on-the-finger
5.2.2. Causative/inchoative alternation
The transitivity causative/inchoative alternation is available for pure change
of state verbs but not for transitive verbs that incorporate a feature of
‘contact’. Compare, for instance, the causative interpretation triggered by
(54a) and the passive sense rendered by (54b), which are realized in the
verb-form of NIF’AL 20 (e.g. nextax ‘cut/was cut’) as opposed to the
minimal pair (55a) and (55b), where the alternation with the passive verbform
can trigger both a passive and an inchoative interpretation, depending
on the contextual environment.
(54) a. rut xatxa 'et ha-basar
Ruth cut OM the-meat
‘Ruth cut the meat’
b. ha-basar nextax
the-meat was-cut
‘The meat was cut’
(55) a. dani šavar 'et ha-kos
Dani broke OM the-glass
‘Dani broke the glass’
b. ha-kos nišbera
the-glass {was-broken/broke}
‘The glass {has been broken/broke}’
In (55), the verb šavar ‘break’ is a pure change of state verb; therefore it
can basically be realized with a one-place predicate construction, i.e. with a
single argument denoting the entity undergoing a change of state, as shown