Perception verb complements in Akatek, a Mayan language
Perception verb complements in Akatek, a Mayan language
Perception verb complements in Akatek, a Mayan language
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
3. PVCS OF TYPE2 163<br />
(77) ta chi-on-lo'-w on<br />
COND IMPF-B1p-eat-AP CL1p<br />
`If we eat ::: ' Penalosa & Say (1992)<br />
In the <strong>in</strong>corporat<strong>in</strong>g AP, whose <strong>verb</strong> is marked by the AP su x<br />
-w(i), the former direct object, i.e. usually the patient denot<strong>in</strong>g NP,<br />
has to be directly post<strong>verb</strong>al and cannot take NCLs. However, there<br />
is no correspond<strong>in</strong>g pronom<strong>in</strong>al <strong>verb</strong>al a x for the patient. The set B<br />
marker on the detransitivized <strong>verb</strong> encodes the agent denot<strong>in</strong>g subject.<br />
As can be seen <strong>in</strong> example (78), the semantic agent no' txitam `the<br />
pig' of the transitive construction is the subject, unrealized on the<br />
<strong>verb</strong> s<strong>in</strong>ce third person set B pronom<strong>in</strong>al a xes are zero. The patient<br />
of the transitive construction, aan `corncob', is not realized on the<br />
<strong>verb</strong> at all. This means that for rst and second person patients this<br />
construction is not an option due to the lack of rst and second person<br />
pronouns. Aan `corncob' cannot take an article or a noun classi er nor<br />
can it be moved away from the <strong>verb</strong>al complex <strong>in</strong> the <strong>in</strong>corporat<strong>in</strong>g AP<br />
construction.<br />
(78) x-;-nooch-wi<br />
aan no' txitam<br />
PERF-B3-eat.bit<strong>in</strong>g-AP corncob NCL pig<br />
`The pig was eat<strong>in</strong>g the corncob.' Zavala (1997), 456<br />
The third type of AP is called demoted patient AP, s<strong>in</strong>ce <strong>in</strong><br />
this construction, the patient surfaces as an oblique NP marked with<br />
the preposition i<strong>in</strong> `<strong>in</strong>'. The <strong>verb</strong> is marked either with a -wa or with a<br />
-wi su x. In example (79), the patient aan `corncob' can take a noun<br />
classi er ixim and is part of the PP yi<strong>in</strong> ixim aan.<br />
(79) x-;-nooch-wa no' txitam y-i<strong>in</strong> ixim aan<br />
PERF-B3-eat.bit<strong>in</strong>g-AP NCL pig A3-LOC NCL corncob<br />
`The pig was eat<strong>in</strong>g on the corncob.' Zavala (1997), 456<br />
In the demoted patient AP, the patient is made explicit, while <strong>in</strong> the<br />
<strong>in</strong>corporat<strong>in</strong>g AP it is less explicit, <strong>in</strong> that it cannot be marked. In the<br />
absolutive AP the patient is completely suppressed.<br />
Table 6 provides a summary of the structures of APs <strong>in</strong> <strong>Akatek</strong><br />
compared to the structure of an active transitive construction. Generally,<br />
the <strong>verb</strong>al su x w(i)/wa detransitivizes the <strong>verb</strong>, which then takes<br />
only a set B pronom<strong>in</strong>al a x <strong>in</strong>stead of both set B and set A a xes.<br />
Accord<strong>in</strong>gly, it can only have one adjunct NP. In AP constructions this<br />
only rema<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g NP is the subject NP of the former active transitive,<br />
usually denot<strong>in</strong>g the agent, while the patient denot<strong>in</strong>g object NP of