proto-southwestern-tai revised: a new reconstruction - seals 22

Thai Eventivity & Stativity 89
VERBS
active stative
activity achievement adjective state
accomplishment open activity
Figure 1: Taxonomy of verb sub-types (Enfield 2004:329, 2007:242)
Enfield (2007:242-245) demonstrates subtle differences in semantics and pragmatics
between “active verbs” and “stative verbs” by using the cooccurrence test on all types of
verbs with aspectual markers. The irrealis markers of siø and caø and the negator bòø, for
instance, can cooccur with all types of verbs all of which are directly marked, but there is a
difference in semantics between active verbs (e.g., ñaang1 ‘walk’) and stative verbs (e.g.,
mii2 ‘have’, suung3 ‘tall’) when they cooccur with the negator bòø.
(6) a. khòòj5 bòø ñaang1
1SG.P NEG walk
‘I don’t/won’t walk.’ (Enfield 2007:243)
b. khòòj5 bòø mii2 pùm4
1SG.P NEG have book
‘I don’t have a book.’
c. khòòj5 bòø suung3
(Enfield 2007:243)
1SG.P NEG tall
‘I am not tall.’ (Enfield 2007:243)
Varying from the active verb in (6a), the state verb in (6b) and the adjective verb in (6c)
(both of which are subclassed as stative verbs) do not give future reading with the negation
marker.
Let us now turn to Thai predicates. In Thai, some predicates also seem to be less
preferable than other verbs when they are marked with aspectual markers such as dây (an
achievement marker) and kamlaŋ (a progressive marker).
(7) a. fâay {dây /kamlaŋ} tham-ŋaan
Faay ACHV PROG work
‘Faay {worked/is working}.’
b. fâay {dây /?kamlaŋ} rúu
Faay ACHV PROG know
‘Faay {got to know/knows}.’