Tibetan Grammar - verbs - notes: Difference between revisions

From Rigpa Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
mNo edit summary
mNo edit summary
 
(33 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
'''WORK IN PROGRESS''': the grammar articles are being edited for wiki publication. During editing, the content might be incomplete, out of sequence or even misleading.
{{Grammar articles}}
 
'''WORK IN PROGRESS''' (''by Stefan J. Gueffroy<ref>recently adopted</ref> <small>[fka Eckel]</small>''): the grammar articles are being edited for wiki publication. During editing, the content might be incomplete, out of sequence or even misleading.<br>
 
 
The approach to explain Tibetan verbs will be changed to that of the "three thematic relations: Theme, Location, and Agent" - there will be discrepancies to the other grammar section until they are matched with it
 
the grammar articles are being edited for wiki publication. During editing, the content might be incomplete, out of sequence or even misleading. - (particular this sections is still in change - the introduction sections are all new - since the 'collection of points on Tibetan grammar' are now available outside of a class room context the background information to some of their points need to be written down, and this is still a work in progress)


{{Grammar articles}}


''by Stefan J. E.''


=Verbs&mdash;Notes=
=Verbs&mdash;Notes=
==How the categories of 'transitive' and 'intransitive' are used here==


In order to categorize Tibetan verbs according to their grammar the categories of ''<nowiki>'</nowiki>transitive<nowiki>'</nowiki>'' and ''<nowiki>'</nowiki>intransitive<nowiki>'</nowiki>'' will be used. The way it will be determined if a verb should be labeled 'transitive' or 'intransitive' will not entirely match the general rule for these  categories.


Generally:
The approach to explain the way Tibetan verb function will be that of  the "three thematic relations: Theme, Location, and Agent " by Scott DeLancey as explained in his "Figure and Ground in Argument Structure" (LSA Summer Institute, UC Santa Barbara, 2001, Lecture 3). Unfortunately I only came across this work recently when reading through different articles trying to find a way to treat the troublesome "agentive directed verbs" - verbs without a theme in ''ming tsam'' but one core argument marked with the agentive particle and one market by the ''locative''.
* '''Intransitive:''' Not passing over to an object; expressing an action or state that is limited to the agent or subject.
 
* '''Transitive:''' Passing over to an object; expressing an action which is not limited to the agent or subject.
==On the Categories of 'Transitive' and 'Intransitive' in Here==


The categorization will be in regard to the presence of an agent in the agentive case. In a number of cases this will lead to differences in regard to their English counterparts.
The the ''agentive transitive'' and ''ming tsam intransitive'' categories are respectively either the "simple" transitive or intransitive verbs. These names are merely a naming convention to distinguish them from transitive and intransitive ''agentive directed verbs''.<ref>The name ''ming tsam intransitive'' is a mere naming convention, based on the theme in ''ming tsam'' (with no agent) for the verb. It does not at all imply that the verbs are in ''ming tsam''. (That objection was once raised against this naming.) Any other naming convention is possible as long as it distinguishes them form ''agentive directed verbs''.</ref>


{| class="wikitable" style="color:black;background-color:#ffffff; padding: 0px; border: 1px solid #fff;" cellspacing="10" border="0px"
{| class="wikitable" style="color:black;background-color:#f0f8f8; padding: 5px; border: 3px solid #ccc;" cellspacing="5" border="5"
|+
|+
|-
|-
|&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
|&nbsp;''ming tsam'' intransitive&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
|For instance the English word "love" is ''transitive''. There is 'somebody / thing' that is loved. In Tibetan "love" is an unintentional verb and has no agent marked with the ''agentive case'' (it is classified in as  {{gtib|ཐ་མི་དད་པ་}}).  Having these characteristics it will be categorized as an ''intransitive verb'', in the category [["verbs of emotion / attitude verbs"]] and its grammar described as:
|&nbsp;intransitve&nbsp;&nbsp;
|
|-
|-
|&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
|&nbsp;agentive transitive
|{{grule|'''Patient''' (subject): ''ming tsam'', and '''qualifier'''&mdash;that which the attitude is towards: ''la don''.}}<br>
|
|&nbsp;transitve, ditransitve
|-
|&nbsp;agentive directed
|&nbsp;intransitve,
|&nbsp;indirect ditransitive, indirect transitive
|-
|-
|&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
|{{gsample|ལུག་རྫི་ལུག་ལ་བྱམས།|shepherd sheep&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;kind, loving|The shepherd is loving to the sheep.}}<br>
|}
|}


In most cases this way of dealing with Tibetan verbs leads to a straight forward way of categorizing them. Yet it does lead to problems with some 'transitive verbs with ''la don''<nowiki>'</nowiki> (see below) and can obscure the fact that divalent intransitive verbs are simply the unintentional counterpart of intentional transitive (divalent) 'verbs with ''la don''<nowiki>'</nowiki> (see below).
==Classification as Patient, subject-object, and valency: advantages and problems==
===Patient===
* '''Patient''' here is used as a convenient term for the
# subject of an intransitive verb and the
# object of a transitive verb.
These two are mostly in the ''ming tsam'' case&mdash;marked by no particle&mdash;'just the word'.<ref>'''S. V. Beyer:''' ''The Classical Tibetan Language'', p.259-260: "Intransitive verbs occur with a patient; transitive verbs occur with both a patient and an agency. [...] Tibetan&mdash;syntactically identify the intransitive and transitive patients. In Tibetan they both given the ''patient role particle''.</ref> The term ''Patient'' is stretched beyonds its definition from thematic relations; e.g. it will also include theme&mdash;undergoes the action but does not change its state, and experiencer&mdash;the entity that receives sensory or emotional input. ''Patient'' is also used with static verbs.<ref>In '''S. V. Beyer's''' approach, ibid., p.263: "The ''patient'' of an event is the participant that suffers, endures, or undergoes the particular state, process, or action; the patient is the one the event ''happens to''"</ref>
In general the patient is that which experiences the action. In  many cases<ref>It is for instance not the case in English passive constructions. For example, in the active voice phrase  "The snow leopard  bites the dog", ''the dog'' is both the patient and the direct object. By contrast, in the passive voice phrase "The dog is bitten by the snow leopard", ''the dog'' is still the patient, but now stands as the phrase's subject; while ''the snow leopard'' is only the agent.</ref> it is equal to the object of a transitive verb. The difference between it and an object is that patient is based explicitly on its relationship to the verb, whereas the object is defined primarily through its relationship to the subject.
In Tibetan where the type of verb governs the usage of the respective particles for their agent, patient and particular qualifiers it can be fitting to use these verb dependent  categories (of patient and agent) in order to describe the grammar of verbs.<ref>This is far less useful, if at all, for spoken Tibetan where the subject is the ruling factor for the auxiliary verbs and with the occurrence of a ''fluid-S Split ergative'' in regard to the degree of volition.</ref>
Moreover it is much easier to explain Tibetan using a single term that covers the subject of an intransitive verb and the object a transitive verb. In Tibetan the patient is in 90+% of all cases  in ming tsam, which makes the use of "patient" an advantage for beginners. It is easy to keep in mind that one needs to look for 'something' in ming tsam in order to find the patient of the clause / sentence. (Whereas looking for the subject of a transitive verb could be quite disheartening, given that it is so often omitted.)
In the most part it is straight forward to classify the grammar of verbs using the cases in which their patient, qualifier and agent, if present, are in. It is also easy to describe verb-verb relations in terms of a verb with either a patient (complement) or a qualifier.
However some verbs are problematic when using 'patient'. In order to see where these problems come from there will be an overview of Tibetan verbs with an attempt to use valency as a way of ordering them.
<!--
1.2.2 Tibetan verbs in a valency matrix
1.2.2.1 valency
The term valency or valence5 refers to the property of a word 'to bind' other words to it, 'to demand' complements.
The study of valency structures can be quite detailed.6
The concern here is the obligatory complements. Obligatory complements are complements which have to be expressed in a grammatical sentence to enable the use of the predicator (verb), the verb requires all of the arguments (complements) in a well-formed sentence. However verbs sometimes undergo valency reduction or expansion.7
1.2.2.2 types of valency
1. a monovalent verb takes one argument, e.g. "He sleeps."
2. a divalent verb takes two, e.g. "He hit the king."
3. a trivalent verb takes three, e.g. "He gave her a ring."
8
1.2.2.3 valency and Tibetan
Valency comes from the study of languages that generaly don't have the ability to omit the same amount of components of a sentence as Tibetan does. In Tibetan a sentence does not become ungrammatical or poorly formed by omitting parts that are to be understood from context, even if it is the subject or object of the sentence. It could even be bad style to state them.
For that reason the way valency will be used here is to look at the number of obligatory complements of a sentence without omissions. When counting obligatory complements there might be some debate with questions like "What can't be left out?" and "What needs to be always assumed?". For instance with the verb "to look" is it assumed that there is always something which is looked at? If it is, with verbs of living is it assumed that there is always a place where one stays?
The valency model is used here as merely an aid to illustrate the main differences between Tibetan verbs, with the 'divalent verbs with la don' as the main topic. In this context the verbs of perception are treated as divalent whereas verbs of living and motion as monovalent.
Note: The category of Zero Valency (see above) which is used in the great work "Lhasa Verbs"9will not be used. Compound verbs like ཆར་པ་འབབ་ "to rain" will be treated as the monovalent verb འབབ་ "to fall" with the noun ཆར་པ་ "rain".
1.2.2.4 Tibetan verb valency-particle-volition matrix
This section is in particular about transitive verbs with their patient / object marked by la don. For that reason other divalent verbs like verbs of separation that have a qualifier-what one is separated from-are excluded.
The examples:
ཉི་མ་ཤར།
ཁོ་ཚོ་སོང་།
ལུག་རྫི་ལུག་ལ་བྱམས།
བདུད་རྩི་ལྟ་བུའི་ཆོས་ཤིག་བདག་གིས་རྙེད།
sun    arose
they went
shepherd sheep  kind, loving
nectar  like Dharma a/one  I    found
The sun arose.
They went.
The shepherd is loving to the sheep.
I have found this nectar like Dharma.
སངས་རྒྱས་ཀྱིས་ཆོས་བསྟན།
ཁོས་དཔེ་དེབ་ལ་བལྟས།
བདག་གིས་གཞན་ལ་ཕན་པར་བྱ།
སྨན་པས་ནད་པ་ལ་སྨན་སྟེར།
Buddha      Dharma taught
he      book(s)  looked
I              other  benefit  will (auxiliary verb)
doctor  the ill  medicine give
The Buddha taught the Dharma.
He looked at books.
I will benefit others.
The doctor gives medicine to the ill.
སྙིང་ནས་གྲོལ་བ་དོན་དུ་གཉེར་བའི་གང་ཟག་གིས། བདག་མེད་པའི་ལྟ་བ་རྣམ་པར་དག་པ་ཁོང་དུ་ཆུད་པའི་ཐབས་ལ་འབད་དགོས།
heart  liberation    seek            persons              selflessness  view completely pure  understand  means  effort  need
Persons who from the depths of their hearts seek liberation must work at the means of understanding the correct view of selflessness.
valency
type of verb
agentive case
ming tsam
lad don
verb example
monovalent
unintentional,
intransitive
patient / subject
ཉི་མ་
intransitive verbs
ཤར་ ཐ་མི་དད་པ་
intentional,
intransitive
patient / subject
ཁོ་ཚོ་
verbs of motion
སོང་ ཐ་མི་དད་པ་
divalent
unintentional,
intransitive
patient / subject
ལུག་རྫི་
qualifier
ལུག་ལ་
attitude verbs
བྱམས་ ཐ་མི་དད་པ་
unintentional,
transitive
agent / subject
བདག་གིས་
patient / object
ཆོས་
"fruitional" verbs
རྙེད་ ཐ་མི་དད་པ་
intentional,
transitive
agent / subject
སངས་རྒྱས་ཀྱིས་
patient / object
ཆོས་
transitive verbs
བསྟན་ ཐ་དད་པ་
intentional,
transitive
agent / subject
ཁོས་
agent / subject
བདག་གིས་
patient / object
དཔེ་དེབ་ལ་
patient / object
གཞན་ལ་
transitive verbs
བལྟས་ ཐ་དད་པ་
verbs of benefit
ཕན་ ཐ་མི་དད་པ་
intentional,
"?"
agent / subject
གང་ཟག་གིས་
qualifier
ཐབས་ལ་
verbs expressing "to make effort"
འབད་ ཐ་དད་པ་
trivalent
intentional,
transitive
agent / subject
སྨན་པས་
patient / object
སྨན་
recipient / indirect object
ནད་པ་ལ་
ditransitive verbs
སྟེར་ ཐ་དད་པ་
When looking at which particle marks what, the agentive case always marks an agent, and ming tsam always a patient, so why do the la don seem to be 'multitasking', marking qualifier for unintentional and patient for intentional verbs? Or, is there even a real difference between what they are marking for unintentional and intentional divalent verbs?
1.2.2.5 divalent verbs with la don
La don do have a wide range of functions, but they all fall into the category of marking some kind of qualifier. This comes from their origin of being words of location and direction.10 Which would make the complement of the transitve divalent verbs the 'direction' the action is directed towards and not the patient.
For example, Peter Schwieger treats these verbs as intransitive, pointing out that even though they are ཐ་དད་པ་ classified they have their object marked with the la don and are not transitive.11 The examples are འཛེག་"to climb", བརྩོན་"to stirve" and གནོད་"to harm". The ཐ་དད་པ་ verbs  ལྟ་བ་"to look" གནོད་པ་"to harm" which both use la don are placed with 'intentional (controllable) intransitive verbs'.12 The examples:
དེ་ནས་ཀུན་དགའ་བོས་ཕྱོགས་བཞིར་བལྟས་ཏེ།
དེ་ལ་སུས་གནོད་སུ་ལ་གནོད།།
then      Ānanda      direction    four  looked
that  who harm  who  harm
Then Ānanda looked into the four directions.   
Who harms that [one]?  Who is harmed?
When looking at those unintentional and intentional divalent verbs one can say that they are the unintentional and intentional counterpart of each other. With that view it follows logically that the agent of the intentional verbs would be the one doing and experiencing the action just as the patient of the unintentional verbs does. The agent would substitute the patient, or be the patient.
Being the patient or agent should be mutially exclusive and is only possible here due to the way these terms are used as terms of convenience. The patient being the one undergoing the action, and the agent the one marked with the agentive case.
When following the rule that the patient is in ming tsam one option is to take the agent as the substitute for the patient. That is done in the case of "verbs expressing 'to make effort, to engage'". It is not used with any of the other intentional divalent verbs. The next sections explains why.
1.2.2.6 intentional divalent verbs with la don and the 'labeled' patient


Keeping with the way of labeling verbs described above, all verbs that have an agent marked with the agentive case are categorized as transitive. As a result the intentional divalent verb are labeled as transitive too.
The agentive transitive and ''ming tsam'' intransitive are easily classified by the possibility of a given verb to either have the theme (in ''ming tsam'') together with an agent marked with the agentive particle (with transitive verbs) or not (with intransitive verbs).
In most cases this label is appropriate because the majority of these verbs have a complement that one would usually consider to be an object rather than a qualifier. E.g.(generic)


ཁོང་གིས་ཁྱི་མཐོང་།
In contrast to that the verbs of the agentive directed category have a core participant with the agentive  particle but include verbs that are intransitive, "indirect transitive" and "indirect ditransitive".
ཁོང་གིས་ཁྱི་ལ་ལྟ།
he          dog  see
he          dog  look
He sees the dog.
He looks at the dog.
divalent, unintentional, ཐ་མི་དད་པ་ classified
divalent, intentional, ཐ་དད་པ་ classified


It takes some explaining in order to show how the dog that is seen is more involved in the action than the dog that is looked at.13 Yes the 'looked at dog' is not in ming tsam and there is a quite a grammatical difference when looked a bit closer (as above), yet while the complement is that what action is directed towards, it becomes quite apperend with "verbs of harm" like གནོད་པ་ "to harm" that the complement 'that what is harmed' can also be directly involved in the subject's "performance" of the verb.
==The Agentive Directed Verbs==
Intentional divalent verbs with la don are in themselves not one type of verb. They range from "verbs of benefit and harm" with their complement having all the characteristics of a patient, "intentional verbs of perception" and "verbs expressing mental activity" with an adverbial complement that could be viewed as an object or patient, to the other side of "verbs expressing 'to make effort, to engage'" which come with an adverbial complement that shows the direction of the action of the verb without any involvement in it.
There are different semantic groups of verbs that have the agentive directed syntax. The reasons for having this agentive directed syntax differs between these groups, which are:
This range is also illustrated by their English counterparts. The "verbs of benefit and harm"are transitive14, e.g.,"She benefits the school.". The "intentional verbs of perception" and "verbs expressing mental activity" are not as clearly cut, they can be either transitve or intrasitve or be used in both ways, e.g., v.t."She thinks virtuous thoughts", v.i."He thinks about leaving." and the "verbs expressing 'to make effort, to engage'" are intransitve, e.g.,"She strives for success.".
*intentional verbs of perception
*verbs expressing "to make effort, to engage in"
*verbs of comparison and competition
*Verbs of benefit or harm
*the verb "to pervade" {{gtib|ཁྱབ་}}
*a number of transitive verbs that can come alternatively with an agentive directed syntax


Here, when the complement marked by la don has qualties of an object it will labeled as 'patient' (which is marked by la don). In the example with "look" that what is looked at "dog" will be labeled as the patient.
===On the Ditransitivity of Verbs of Benefit or Harm===
This does not work for "verbs expressing 'to make effort, to engage'". There simply comes a point when even the very enduring 'patient' can not be stretch any further. That 'what the effort is towards', the adverbial complement that shows the direction of the action, is a qualifier marked by a la don and not a patient. In order to keep with the way of categorizing - that the agents with the agentive case is the sign of a transitive verb - the "verbs expressing 'to make effort, to engage'" are labeled "intransitive verbs with transitive grammar".
The archetypical ditransitive constructions describing a scene that expresses physical transfer like "give", "sell", "lend", "hand over" in which an agent participant causes an object to pass into the possession of an animate receiver /recipient. This can be widened to include verbs of communication like "tell", "teach", "show" which express a mental transfer and also verbs like "offer" and "promise" which have recipient-like arguments.
Here the beneficiary or harmed of "Verbs of Benefit or Harm" is treated as a recipient-like argument and on that basis the Verbs of Benefit or Harm are ''indirect ditransitive''.<br>


1.2.3 conclusion: advantages vs. problems
==={{gtib|ལྟ་བ་}} And Intransitivity===
The verb {{gtib|ལྟ་}} "to look" is intransitive since the one who is doing the action and the one experiencing it are the same. The "looker" is experiencing the act of "looking and since the "looking" is still happening even if nothing is "seen" there is no agent-theme relation expressed. The "looking" has merely a direction (it is directed towards) which is not the theme.
{{gtib|ལྟ་}} has a participant marked with the agentive particle but functions like the theme. Since it is not in ming tsam it is here called the agentive-perceiver who substitutes the theme.


This simpliefied transitive - intransitive categorisation by way of the agent is for the classroom. It leads to having all agents  (obviously) in the agentive case and 90+% of all patients in ming tsam, and for some transitive verbs the patient marked by la don. It has proven to be a very comprehensive approach for students encountering classical Tibetan. (See also: Introduction, origin and aims of this 'collection of different points on Tibetan grammar').
'''Note''': The intentional verbs of perception are classified as {{gtib|ཐ་དད་པ་}} in Tibetan grammar and labelled as transitive in many Tibetan-English dictionaries. Whereas the unintentional verbs of perception (like {{gtib|མཐོང་}}) which are transitive verbs are classified as {{gtib|ཐ་མི་དད་པ་}} and labelled as intransitive in many dictionaries.<br>
It does lead to the above explained inconsistencies of some patients being marked by the la don and the "verbs expressing 'to make effort, to engage'" needing an extra category.
Another reason to label intentional divalent verbs with la don as transitive due to the occurrence of an agent is because the effectiveness of using the agent basis for the categorisation, while at the same time other ways to categorize transitive and intransitive verbs come with their own problems.E.g.:
Takeing the Tibetan categorization of ཐ་དད་པ་ and ཐ་མི་དད་པ་ as a bases leads to trouble with ཐ་མི་དད་པ་ classified verbs with transitive grammar such as unintentional verbs of perception (intentional divalent verbs would still be transitive because they are ཐ་དད་པ་ verbs).
Looking at the presence or absence of an object leads to the question why with "to love" བྱམས་པ་ "that what is loved" is not the object but a qualifier and with "to harm" གནོད་པ་ "that what is harmed" is not the object (it corresponds very well to the definition of patient-the participant that suffers, endures the action).
Using the occurrence of a patient in ming tsam allows for clear categorization but it leads to the fact that verbs like "to harm" གནོད་པ་ would be intransitive verbs with an agent in the agentive case and a qualifier that looks like a patient /object.


Because of verbs like "to harm" གནོད་པ་ where it looks very appropriate to treat them as having a patient marked by a la don, the reason that this way of explaining verbs is very comprehensible for students and the fact that intentional divalent verbs are  ཐ་དད་པ་ verbs in Tibetan this way of categorizing of verbs is chosen - placing 'intentional divalent verbs with la don' with transitive verbs. Provided that it is clear what this classification is based on, why there are occurrences like "verbs expressing 'to make effort, to engage'" that need their own category, it will hopefully be considered reasonable.


===On the Transitivity of Verbs Expressing "To Make Effort, To Engage In"===
The (Tibetan) Verbs Expressing "To Make Effort, To Engage " are not easily classified as either transitive of intransitive.<br>


1.3 volition -  transitive - intransitive
The transitivity or intransitivity of these verbs can not be determined based on their syntax since they do not have a theme in ''ming tsam'' and ''agentive directed'' verbs can be either (indirect) ditransitive or intransitive (see above). Thus any consideration in regard to their transitivity or intransitivity can only be done on semantic grounds which will not have a clearly cut result and be open to debate, as it is often the case categories based on semantics.<br>


Volition in general refers to a distinction that is made in a verb's conjugations15 or case assignment16 to express whether the subject intended the action or not,whether it was done voluntarily or accidentally (involuntarily).
First of all they are not ''indirect ditransitive'' since the goal is not a recipient-like argument, the ''effort'' is directed towards the goal but does not arrive at it or affects it.
Yet the ''effort'' (of the verb) is to some extent theme-like as something that is produced.  For instance {{gtib|འབད་པ་}} "exertion, effort", {{gtib|འབད་བརྩོན་}} "exertion, effort, struggle" are used with the verb {{gtib|བྱེད་}} "to do" as {{gtib|འབད་པ་བྱེད་}} "to make effort" which shows that the notion of the effort as something produced exists, which gives these verbs a transitive characteristic.<br>


In Tibetan volition does neither entirely rule the usage of the agentive case nor he distinction between ཐ་མི་དད་པ་ and ཐ་དད་པ་.
On the other hand if one takes the meaning as rather "to strive for (with a firm mental resolve to achieve) something" then these verbs are also somewhat similar to verbs of motion - with the one ''striving'' not different from the one experiencing the ''striving'' and a goal for it - an intransitive verb with a ''direction'' for the action. The one ''striving'' is in a way (regarding ''theme'' and ''location'') more connected with goal as a destination - wanting to reach there, accomplishing it -  than the ''striving'' itself which is only the means, with the one ''striving'' marked by agentive particle do to the very voluntary and active nature of the verb. <br>
Unintentional intransitive verbs are ཐ་མི་དད་པ་ and have no agent in the agentive case.
Intentional intransitive verbs are ཐ་མི་དད་པ་ and have no agent in the agentive case, i.e., verbs of motion and living.
Unintentional transitive verbs are ཐ་མི་དད་པ་ and have an agent in the agentive case, e.g., unintentional verbs of perception.
Intentional transitive verbs are ཐ་དད་པ་ and have an agent in the agentive case.


volition
intransitive
transitive
unintentional
E.g., unintentional intransitive verbs, e.g., འཆར་བ་ to appear unintentional verbs of feeling, e.g., བཀྲེས་པ་to be hungry
E.g., unintentional verbs of perception, e.g., མཐོང་བ་to see
verbs of "understanding", e.g., ཧ་གོ་བ་ to understand
"passive / fruitional" verbs, e.g., འཐོབ་པ་ to attain, to obtain


ming tsam
If these verbs are viewed as to have a lexicalized theme - the ''effort'' - they are ''indirect transitive'' with a direction of the action, "''what the effort is toward''". If they are taken merely to mean "to strive" they are rather intransitive.<br>
ཐ་མི་དད་པ་
patient / subject
མེ་ཏོག་
intransitive verb
འཆར་
The flower blossoms.
agentive case
ming tsam
ཐ་མི་དད་པ་
agent / subject
ཀུན་དགའ་བོས་
patient / object
དགྲ་བཅོམ་པ་ཉིད་
"fruitional" verb
ཐོབ་བོ།།
Ananda attained [the state of an] arhat.
intentional
E.g., verbs of motion, e.g.,འགྲོ་བ་ to go
verbs of living, e.g., སྡོད་པ་ to stay
E.g., intentional transitive verbs, e.g.,  སྟོན་པ་ to teach, 
འཐུང་བ་ to drink, བཟོ་བ་ to make, do, produce, manufacture


ming tsam
'''Conclusion''': These verbs are ''agentive directed'' and the meaning expressed is clear (no need to be a Platonic essentialist about transitivity and intransitivity).<br>
lad don
ཐ་མི་དད་པ་
patient / subject
ཁོ་
qualifier
ལྷ་སར་
verb of motion
འགྲོ་
He goes to Lhasa.
agentive case
ming tsam
ཐ་དད་པ་
agent / subject
ཁོས་
patient / object
ཇ་
transitive verb
འཐུང་
He drinks tea.


Note: not finished, leave out for now!
'''Note''': By Tibetans these verbs are categorized as {{gtib|ཐ་དད་པ་}} (action passing over); In English "to strive (for)" is intransitive accompanied by a qualifier stating what one is striving for; S.V.Beyer designates {{gtib|རྩོལ་}} and {{gtib|བརྩོན་}} as intransitive verbs.<ref>S.V.Beyer, The Classic Tibetan Language p.341</ref>; In "A Tibetan Verb Lexicon" {{gtib|འབད་}} "to make effort" belongs to the "verb class VI" / "Agentive-Objective Verb"<ref>P.G. Hackett, A Tibetan Verb Lexicon, 2003, p.131</ref> which corresponds to agentive directed syntax.<ref>P.G. Hackett,(ibid.) In their system the verb class VI is linked to "different" {{gtib|ཐ་དད་པ་}} (p.7) which is there taken as transitive (p.6).</ref><br>
Intentional intransitive verbs: In linguistic context the intentional intransitive verbs of motion and living are also called unergative verbs-verbs that have a volitional subject that is not marked by the agentiv (ergative).17
In spoken tibetan there is a distinct (morphosyntactical18) difference between unintentional and intentional intransitive verbs, they take unintentional and intentional auxiliary verbs respectively.19


Unintentional transitive verbs: object to involved be la don, to find still agent in kham, Lhasa involuntary auxiliary verbs, agent considered to be involved in the action, directly action upon an object, attitude verbs ming tsam la don, with perception mental activity la don active direction


===Verbs Expressing Mental Activity with Directed Grammar===


Verbs of mental activity like {{gtib|དཔྱོད་པ་ }} when it means "to examine",  {{gtib|སེམས་པ་ }} when it means "to contemplate"
When an agent is actively engaging in the "object of interest" with verbs expressing mental activity - like {{gtib|སེམས་པ་}}, when it means "to contemplate", {{gtib|སྒོམ་པ་}} "to meditate about" and {{gtib|དཔྱོད་པ་}} when it means "to examine" - then these verbs can have the direction of their investigation marked with the  locative {{gtib|ལ་}} instead of having a theme in ''ming tsam''. This difference in grammar comes from the difference between "[just] thinking something" and "[directly] investigating something".<br>


1.4. this presentation in relation to other systems
This grammar can be interpreted in different ways: <br>
- that the participant marked by the locative substitutes the theme - the theme is marked by the locative<br>
- that the participant marked by the locative {{gtib|ལ་}} is processed as the direction of the action with the theme lexicalized in the verb<br>
- that it is similar to the grammar of intentional verbs of perception like {{gtib|ལྟ་བ་}} "to look"<br>


'''Note''': If the theme (object) is a whole clause then it is marked by the terminative {{gtib|སུ་རུ་ཏུ་དུ་ར་}}. This is not an occurrence of an agentive directed grammar.<br>


(1.5  extended verb valency-particle matrix - needs discussion of its merits)


'''<nowiki>[</nowiki>...<nowiki>]</nowiki>'''




la don
the question is very ti came form in the beginning, it like was a qualifier in hte beginnig, as ladon mark qyulifier, usage of a structure for with verbs that take qulifier to intransitve verbs directly? - come to do - difficu.t to come


-->
-->

Latest revision as of 14:05, 12 May 2017

Articles on Tibetan Grammar
1. Introduction
2. Formation of the Tibetan Syllable
3. Formation of the Tibetan Word
4. First case: ming tsam
5. agentive particle
6. Connective Particle
7. La don particles
8. La don particles—Notes
9. Originative case
10. Verbs
11. Verbs—Notes
12. Syntactic particles

WORK IN PROGRESS (by Stefan J. Gueffroy[1] [fka Eckel]): the grammar articles are being edited for wiki publication. During editing, the content might be incomplete, out of sequence or even misleading.


The approach to explain Tibetan verbs will be changed to that of the "three thematic relations: Theme, Location, and Agent" - there will be discrepancies to the other grammar section until they are matched with it

the grammar articles are being edited for wiki publication. During editing, the content might be incomplete, out of sequence or even misleading. - (particular this sections is still in change - the introduction sections are all new - since the 'collection of points on Tibetan grammar' are now available outside of a class room context the background information to some of their points need to be written down, and this is still a work in progress)


Verbs—Notes

The approach to explain the way Tibetan verb function will be that of the "three thematic relations: Theme, Location, and Agent " by Scott DeLancey as explained in his "Figure and Ground in Argument Structure" (LSA Summer Institute, UC Santa Barbara, 2001, Lecture 3). Unfortunately I only came across this work recently when reading through different articles trying to find a way to treat the troublesome "agentive directed verbs" - verbs without a theme in ming tsam but one core argument marked with the agentive particle and one market by the locative.

On the Categories of 'Transitive' and 'Intransitive' in Here

The the agentive transitive and ming tsam intransitive categories are respectively either the "simple" transitive or intransitive verbs. These names are merely a naming convention to distinguish them from transitive and intransitive agentive directed verbs.[2]

 ming tsam intransitive     intransitve  
 agentive transitive  transitve, ditransitve
 agentive directed  intransitve,  indirect ditransitive, indirect transitive


The agentive transitive and ming tsam intransitive are easily classified by the possibility of a given verb to either have the theme (in ming tsam) together with an agent marked with the agentive particle (with transitive verbs) or not (with intransitive verbs).

In contrast to that the verbs of the agentive directed category have a core participant with the agentive particle but include verbs that are intransitive, "indirect transitive" and "indirect ditransitive".

The Agentive Directed Verbs

There are different semantic groups of verbs that have the agentive directed syntax. The reasons for having this agentive directed syntax differs between these groups, which are:

  • intentional verbs of perception
  • verbs expressing "to make effort, to engage in"
  • verbs of comparison and competition
  • Verbs of benefit or harm
  • the verb "to pervade" ཁྱབ་
  • a number of transitive verbs that can come alternatively with an agentive directed syntax

On the Ditransitivity of Verbs of Benefit or Harm

The archetypical ditransitive constructions describing a scene that expresses physical transfer like "give", "sell", "lend", "hand over" in which an agent participant causes an object to pass into the possession of an animate receiver /recipient. This can be widened to include verbs of communication like "tell", "teach", "show" which express a mental transfer and also verbs like "offer" and "promise" which have recipient-like arguments. Here the beneficiary or harmed of "Verbs of Benefit or Harm" is treated as a recipient-like argument and on that basis the Verbs of Benefit or Harm are indirect ditransitive.

ལྟ་བ་ And Intransitivity

The verb ལྟ་ "to look" is intransitive since the one who is doing the action and the one experiencing it are the same. The "looker" is experiencing the act of "looking and since the "looking" is still happening even if nothing is "seen" there is no agent-theme relation expressed. The "looking" has merely a direction (it is directed towards) which is not the theme. ལྟ་ has a participant marked with the agentive particle but functions like the theme. Since it is not in ming tsam it is here called the agentive-perceiver who substitutes the theme.

Note: The intentional verbs of perception are classified as ཐ་དད་པ་ in Tibetan grammar and labelled as transitive in many Tibetan-English dictionaries. Whereas the unintentional verbs of perception (like མཐོང་) which are transitive verbs are classified as ཐ་མི་དད་པ་ and labelled as intransitive in many dictionaries.


On the Transitivity of Verbs Expressing "To Make Effort, To Engage In"

The (Tibetan) Verbs Expressing "To Make Effort, To Engage " are not easily classified as either transitive of intransitive.

The transitivity or intransitivity of these verbs can not be determined based on their syntax since they do not have a theme in ming tsam and agentive directed verbs can be either (indirect) ditransitive or intransitive (see above). Thus any consideration in regard to their transitivity or intransitivity can only be done on semantic grounds which will not have a clearly cut result and be open to debate, as it is often the case categories based on semantics.

First of all they are not indirect ditransitive since the goal is not a recipient-like argument, the effort is directed towards the goal but does not arrive at it or affects it. Yet the effort (of the verb) is to some extent theme-like as something that is produced. For instance འབད་པ་ "exertion, effort", འབད་བརྩོན་ "exertion, effort, struggle" are used with the verb བྱེད་ "to do" as འབད་པ་བྱེད་ "to make effort" which shows that the notion of the effort as something produced exists, which gives these verbs a transitive characteristic.

On the other hand if one takes the meaning as rather "to strive for (with a firm mental resolve to achieve) something" then these verbs are also somewhat similar to verbs of motion - with the one striving not different from the one experiencing the striving and a goal for it - an intransitive verb with a direction for the action. The one striving is in a way (regarding theme and location) more connected with goal as a destination - wanting to reach there, accomplishing it - than the striving itself which is only the means, with the one striving marked by agentive particle do to the very voluntary and active nature of the verb.


If these verbs are viewed as to have a lexicalized theme - the effort - they are indirect transitive with a direction of the action, "what the effort is toward". If they are taken merely to mean "to strive" they are rather intransitive.

Conclusion: These verbs are agentive directed and the meaning expressed is clear (no need to be a Platonic essentialist about transitivity and intransitivity).

Note: By Tibetans these verbs are categorized as ཐ་དད་པ་ (action passing over); In English "to strive (for)" is intransitive accompanied by a qualifier stating what one is striving for; S.V.Beyer designates རྩོལ་ and བརྩོན་ as intransitive verbs.[3]; In "A Tibetan Verb Lexicon" འབད་ "to make effort" belongs to the "verb class VI" / "Agentive-Objective Verb"[4] which corresponds to agentive directed syntax.[5]


Verbs Expressing Mental Activity with Directed Grammar

Verbs of mental activity like དཔྱོད་པ་ when it means "to examine", སེམས་པ་ when it means "to contemplate" When an agent is actively engaging in the "object of interest" with verbs expressing mental activity - like སེམས་པ་, when it means "to contemplate", སྒོམ་པ་ "to meditate about" and དཔྱོད་པ་ when it means "to examine" - then these verbs can have the direction of their investigation marked with the locative ལ་ instead of having a theme in ming tsam. This difference in grammar comes from the difference between "[just] thinking something" and "[directly] investigating something".

This grammar can be interpreted in different ways:
- that the participant marked by the locative substitutes the theme - the theme is marked by the locative
- that the participant marked by the locative ལ་ is processed as the direction of the action with the theme lexicalized in the verb
- that it is similar to the grammar of intentional verbs of perception like ལྟ་བ་ "to look"

Note: If the theme (object) is a whole clause then it is marked by the terminative སུ་རུ་ཏུ་དུ་ར་. This is not an occurrence of an agentive directed grammar.


[...]


-->

Endnotes

  1. ↑ recently adopted
  2. ↑ The name ming tsam intransitive is a mere naming convention, based on the theme in ming tsam (with no agent) for the verb. It does not at all imply that the verbs are in ming tsam. (That objection was once raised against this naming.) Any other naming convention is possible as long as it distinguishes them form agentive directed verbs.
  3. ↑ S.V.Beyer, The Classic Tibetan Language p.341
  4. ↑ P.G. Hackett, A Tibetan Verb Lexicon, 2003, p.131
  5. ↑ P.G. Hackett,(ibid.) In their system the verb class VI is linked to "different" ཐ་དད་པ་ (p.7) which is there taken as transitive (p.6).
Retrieved from "https://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Tibetan_Grammar_-_verbs_-_notes&oldid=79316"