Tibetan Grammar - verbs - notes: Difference between revisions

From Rigpa Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
mNo edit summary
 
(17 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. - (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}}
{{Grammar articles}}


''by Stefan J. E.''
'''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>


=Verbs&mdash;Notes=


This is written to explain the simplified way of  classifying transitive and intransitive ([[#How the categories of 'transitive' and 'intransitive' are used here|1.1]]) and it points to the problems and inconsistencies coming with it ([[#Classification as Patient, subject-object: advantages and problems|1.2]]). In 1.2 valency is introduced to map out Tibetan verbs, which might be not have been necessary as such, but seemed a nice way to do so and in its course introduces verbs that will be seen again in 1.4. "[[#'verbs and their cases', considerations and conclusion|'verbs and their cases', considerations and conclusion]]".
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


==How the categories of 'transitive' and 'intransitive' are used here==
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)


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:
* '''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.
{{Tibetan}}


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.
=Verbs&mdash;Notes=
 
{| class="wikitable" style="color:black;background-color:#ffffff; padding: 0px; border: 1px solid #fff;" cellspacing="10" border="0px"
|+
|-
|&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&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 [[Tibetan Grammar - verbs#Verbs of emotion or attitude|Verbs of emotion or attitude]] and its grammar described as:
|-
|&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
|{{grule|'''Patient''' (subject): ''ming tsam'',  and '''qualifier'''&mdash;that which the attitude is towards: ''la don''.}}<br>
|-
|&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, valency: advantages and problems==
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''.


This section is written in regard to the simplified way of  classifying transitive and intransitive, (see above). It points to the problems and inconsistencies coming with it.
==On the Categories of 'Transitive' and 'Intransitive' in Here==
===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.
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>


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>
{| class="wikitable" style="color:black;background-color:#f0f8f8; padding: 5px; border: 3px solid #ccc;" cellspacing="5" border="5"
 
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.
 
 
===Tibetan verbs in a valency matrix===
====Valency====
The term valency or valence<ref>The linguistic meaning of valence derives from the definition of valency in chemistry, where it is is a measure of the number of bonds formed by an atom of a given element.</ref> 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.<ref>There can be the quantitative and qualitative syntactic and semantic valency, and categories of obligatory complements, optional complements, contextually optional complements, and adjuncts.</ref>
 
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.<ref>E.g.: Divalent "He is drinking a coffee.", may be reduced to monovalency in "He is drinking."</ref>
 
====Types of valency====
# ''Monovalent'' verb takes one argument, e.g. "'''He''' sleeps."
# ''Divalent'' verb takes two, e.g. "'''He''' hit the '''king'''."
# ''Trivalent'' verb takes three, e.g. "'''He''' gave '''her''' a '''ring'''."
* ''Zero valency:'' When a complement status is not attributed to "it" (even though that it is certainly to be regarded as a property of the governing verb that it takes "it" as its subject) then one needs to add ''zero valency'', the avalent verb that take no arguments, e.g. "It rains.", with the explanation that "it" is only a dummy subject and a syntactic placeholder&mdash;"it" has no true meaning. No other subject can replace it.
 
====Valency and Tibetan====
Valency comes from the study of languages that generally 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"<ref>''Lhasa Verbs, A Practical Introduction'', by Tibetan contributors: '''Pema Gyatso''', '''Dawa''', '''Dekyi'''; created and produced by: '''Geoff Bailey''' and '''Christopher E. Walter'''</ref> will not be used. Compound verbs like {{gtib|ཆར་པ་འབབ་}} "to rain" will be treated as the monovalent verb {{gtib|འབབ་}} "to fall" with the noun {{gtib|ཆར་པ་}} "rain".
 
 
====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:
 
{| class="wikitable" style="color:black;background-color:#ffffff; padding: 0px; border: 1px solid #fff;" cellspacing="10" border="0px"
|+
|-
|{{gsample|ཉི་མ་ཤར།|sun&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;arose|The sun arose.}}
|{{gsample|ཁོ་ཚོ་སོང་།|they went|They went.}}
|{{gsample|ལུག་རྫི་ལུག་ལ་བྱམས།|shepherd sheep&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;kind, loving|The shepherd is loving to the sheep.}}
|{{gsample|བདུད་རྩི་ལྟ་བུའི་ཆོས་ཤིག་བདག་གིས་རྙེད།|nectar&nbsp;&nbsp;like Dharma a/one&nbsp;&nbsp;I&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;found|I have found this nectar like Dharma.}}
|}<br>
 
{| class="wikitable" style="color:black;background-color:#ffffff; padding: 0px; border: 1px solid #fff;" cellspacing="10" border="0px"
|+
|-
|{{gsample|སངས་རྒྱས་ཀྱིས་ཆོས་བསྟན།|Buddha&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Dharma taught|The Buddha taught the Dharma.}}
|{{gsample|ཁོས་དཔེ་དེབ་ལ་བལྟས།|he&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;book(s)&nbsp;&nbsp;looked|He looked at books.}}
|{{gsample|བདག་གིས་གཞན་ལ་ཕན་པར་བྱ།|I&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;other&nbsp;&nbsp;benefit&nbsp;&nbsp;will ''(aux)'' |I will benefit others.}}
|{{gsample|སྨན་པས་ནད་པ་ལ་སྨན་སྟེར།|doctor&nbsp;&nbsp;the ill&nbsp;&nbsp;medicine give|The doctor gives medicine<br>to the ill.}}
|}<br>
 
{{gsample|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&nbsp;&nbsp;liberation&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;seek&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;persons&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;selflessness&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;view completely pure&nbsp;&nbsp;understand&nbsp;&nbsp;means&nbsp;&nbsp;effort&nbsp;&nbsp;need|Persons who from the depths of their hearts seek liberation must work at the means of understanding the correct view of selflessness.}}<br>
 
{| class="wikitable" style="color:black;  padding: 0px; border: 1px solid #777; text-align:left,top" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5"
|+
|+
|-
|-
|style="width:16%; background: #e0e0e0; border: 1px solid #999"|'''valency'''
|&nbsp;''ming tsam'' intransitive&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
|style="width:16%; background: #e0e0e0; border: 1px solid #999"|'''type of verb'''
|&nbsp;intransitve&nbsp;&nbsp;
|style="width:16%; background: #e0e0e0; border: 1px solid #999"|'''agentive case'''
|
|style="width:16%; background: #e0e0e0; border: 1px solid #999"|'''''ming tsam'''''
|style="width:16%; background: #e0e0e0; border: 1px solid #999"|'''''lad don'''''
|style="width:16%; background: #e0e0e0; border: 1px solid #999"|'''verb example'''
|-
|-
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|monovalent
|&nbsp;agentive transitive
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|unintentional,<br>intransitive
|
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|
|&nbsp;transitve, ditransitve
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|patient / subject<br>{{gtib|ཉི་མ་}}
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|intransitive verbs<br>{{gtib|ཤར་}} (ཐ་མི་དད་པ་)
|-
|-
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|
|&nbsp;agentive directed
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|intentional,<br>intransitive
|&nbsp;intransitve,
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|
|&nbsp;indirect ditransitive, indirect transitive
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|patient / subject<br>{{gtib|ཁོ་ཚོ་}}
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|verbs of motion<br>{{gtib|སོང་}} (ཐ་མི་དད་པ་)
|-
|-
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|divalent
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|unintentional,<br>intransitive
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|patient / subject<br>{{gtib|ལུག་རྫི་}}
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|qualifier<br>{{gtib|ལུག་ལ་}}
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|attitude verbs<br>{{gtib|བྱམས་}} (ཐ་མི་དད་པ་)
|-
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|unintentional,<br>transitive
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|agent / subject<br>{{gtib|བདག་གིས}}
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|patient / object<br>{{gtib|ཆོས་}}
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|"fruitional" verbs<br>{{gtib|རྙེད་}} (ཐ་མི་དད་པ་)
|-
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|intentional,<br>transitive
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|agent / subject<br>{{gtib|སངས་རྒྱས་ཀྱིས}}་
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|patient / object<br>{{gtib|ཆོས་}}
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|transitive verbs<br>{{gtib|བསྟན་}} (ཐ་དད་པ་)
|-
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|intentional,<br>"transitive"*
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|agent / subject<br>{{gtib|ཁོས་}}<br><br>agent / subject<br>{{gtib|བདག་གིས་}}
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|"patient / object"<br>{{gtib|དཔེ་དེབ་ལ་}}<br><br>"patient / object"<br>{{gtib|གཞན་ལ་}}
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|transitive verbs<br>{{gtib|བལྟས་}} (ཐ་དད་པ་)<br><br>verbs of benefit<br>{{gtib|ཕན་}} (ཐ་མི་དད་པ་)
|-
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|intentional,<br>"?"
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|agent / subject<br>{{gtib|གང་ཟག་གིས}}
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|qualifier<br>{{gtib|ཐབས་ལ་}}
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|verbs expressing<br>"to make effort"<br>{{gtib|འབད་}} (ཐ་དད་པ་)
|-
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|trivalent
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|intentional,<br>transitive
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|agent / subject<br>{{gtib|སྨན་པས་}}
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|patient / object<br>{{gtib|སྨན་}}
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|recipient / indirect object<br>{{gtib|ནད་པ་ལ}}
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|ditransitive verbs<br>{{gtib|སྟེར}} (ཐ་དད་པ་)
|}
|}
<small>* Because this section puts the simplified approach in more grammatical context, some of the labels "transitive" and "patient / object" are in inverted commas, indicating that there is more to those.</small>


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?


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).


====Divalent verbs with ''la don''====
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".
''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.<ref>'''Walter Simon:''' ''Certain Tibetan Suffixes and Their Combinations'', Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, Vol. 5, No. 3/4. (Jan., 1941), p.378 ff. "3. la: There is an Old Tibetan form laḥ for la, as we had naḥ for na, and there is the verb lan̂ "to rise," a secondary form of ldan̂. Does then la-lan̂  form a pair to match na-nan̂  and ste-sten̂? I believe it does, [...] To discuss finally the meaning for la as a suffix, there can be no doubt that it has acquired a very generalised meaning, but I believe that the meaning "above, upon, on top" can still be felt in many cases..." See p.380 ff. for "4. du (tu, r(u), su)"</ref> Which would make the complement of the transitive 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 {{gtib|ཐ་དད་པ་}} classified they have their object marked with the la don and are not transitive.<ref>'''Peter Schwieger:''' ''Handbuch zur Grammatik der klassischen tibetischen Schriftsprache'' p.75, "Häufig wird die Unterterscheidung von ཐ་དད་པའི་བྱ་ཚིག་ und ཐ་མི་དད་པའི་བྱ་ཚིག་ pauschal mit der Unterscheidung von transitiven und intransitiven Vernen gleichgesetzt. Diese Gleichsetzung trifft zwar in vielen Fällen zu, ist pauschal aber unzulässig. Es finden sich nähmlich eine Reihe von Verben, die zwar als ཐ་དད་པ་ klassifiziert werden, i.d.R. aber die Suffigierung ihres Objectes mit la oder tu bzw. seinen Allomorphen fordern...."<br>
==The Agentive Directed Verbs==
"The differentiation between ཐ་དད་པའི་བྱ་ཚིག་ and ཐ་མི་དད་པའི་བྱ་ཚིག་ are often treated to be the same as the differentiation between transitive und intransitive verbs. While this equivalence applies in many cases it is not possible to use it as a general rule. Because there are a number of verbs that even though classified as ཐ་དད་པ་ require the suffixation of their object with la or tu and its respective allomorphs."</ref> The examples are {{gtib|འཛེག་}}, "to climb", {{gtib|བརྩོན་}}, "to strive" and {{gtib|གནོད་}}, "to harm". The {{gtib|ཐ་དད་པ་{ verbs {{gtib|ལྟ་བ་}}, "to look", {{gtib|གནོད་པ་}}, "to harm" which both use ''la don'' are placed with 'intentional (controllable) intransitive verbs'.<ref>Ibid., p.77, "b) kontrollierbare intransitive Verben"</ref>
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" {{gtib|ཁྱབ་}}
*a number of transitive verbs that can come alternatively with an agentive directed syntax


The examples:
===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''.<br>


{| class="wikitable" style="color:black;background-color:#ffffff; padding: 0px; border: 1px solid #fff;" cellspacing="10" border="0px"
==={{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.
|{{gsample|དེ་ནས་ཀུན་དགའ་བོས་ཕྱོགས་བཞིར་བལྟས་ཏེ།| then&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Ānanda&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;direction&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;four&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;looked|Then Ānanda looked into the four directions.}}
|{{gsample|དེ་ལ་སུས་གནོད་སུ་ལ་གནོད།།|that&nbsp;&nbsp;who harm&nbsp;&nbsp;who&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;harm|Who harms that [one]?  Who is harmed?}}
|}<br>
 
When looking at those unintentional and intentional divalent verbs one can say that they are the unintentional and intentional counterpart of each other.<ref>This is for the purpose of looking at the function of the ''la don'' and just a very rough way to look at these verbs. There is an ongoing interest in research in and debate about the origin and meaning of the Tibetan agentive case and its usage. The unintentional and intentional divalent verbs with la don may have quite different origins and the agentive case might not even marking a volitional action. See below.</ref> 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 mutually 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. (Ts. Takeuchi and Y. Takahashi's conclusion about agent and experiencer of transitive verbs is:"... subjects in transitive sentences have the ergative marker, be they agents or experiencer,..".<ref>Tsuguhito Takeuchi and Yoshiharu, Osaka, Japan 1995, Split Ergative Patterns in Transitive and Intransitive Sentences in Tibetan: a Reconsideration: "Tibetan shows, both in its historical forms and in the Modern Central dialect, a relatively plain ergative marking pattern, where, except for 'marked' usages, subjects in transitive sentences have the ergative marker, be they agents or experiencer, and those in intransitive sentences have no marker."</ref> - Their conclusion is that the experiencer can be marked with the ergative / agentive case.)
 
When following the convention here that the agent in the agentive case, then 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.
 
====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.
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.
 
A generic example:
 
{| class="wikitable" style="color:black;background-color:#ffffff; padding: 0px; border: 1px solid #fff;" cellspacing="10" border="0px"
|+
|-
|{{gsample|ཁོང་གིས་ཁྱི་མཐོང་།|he&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;dog&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;see|He sees the dog.}}
|{{gsample|ཁོང་གིས་ཁྱི་ལ་ལྟ།|he&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;dog&nbsp;&nbsp;look|He looks at the dog.}}
|-
|divalent, unintentional,<br>ཐ་མི་དད་པ་ classified
|divalent, intentional,<br>ཐ་དད་པ་ classified
|}<br>


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.<ref>An object in grammar denotes somebody or something involved in the subject's "performance" of the verb. Basically, it is what the verb is being done to. There is of course a difference between "to look" and "to see". The difference that occurs in Tibetan is also seen in English&mdash;"to see" is transitive with its object in the objective / accusative case (still visible with "him" and "her"&mdash;which is same as the dative case in English) and "to look" is intransitive with an adverbial prepositional phrase as complement starting with "at", "into", etc.</ref>The 'looked at dog' is not in ming tsam and there is a grammatical difference. The 'seen dog' is an object of a transitive verb and 'looked at dog' is the direction of focus for an intransitve verb (see below). Yet in a pragamaitc context the diffetence becomes much less apparent. With "verbs of harm" like {{gtib|གནོད་པ་}}, "to harm" that the complement 'that what is harmed' is  directly involved in the agent's "performance" of the verb. (See blow.)
'''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>


The reason why the degree of involvement of the complement with the action of the verbs differs, comes form the fact that 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.
This range is also illustrated by their English counterparts. The "verbs of benefit and harm" are transitive,<ref>Transitive when meaning "to be helpful or useful to". They are intransitive in English when meaning to derive benefit, e.g. "He benefits from her good example." </ref> 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 transitive or intransitive 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 intransitive, e.g. "She strives for success.".


Here, when the complement marked by ''la don'' has qualities 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 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>


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&mdash;that the agents with the agentive case is the sign of a transitive verb&mdash;the "verbs expressing 'to make effort, to engage'" are labeled "intransitive verbs with transitive grammar".
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>


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>


===Conclusion: advantages vs. problems===
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>
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''. '''The main point''' is, that it has proven to be a very comprehensive approach for students encountering classical Tibetan as beginners. (See also: [[Introduction, origin and aims of this 'collection of different points on Tibetan grammar']]).


It does label some verbs that are actual intransitive as transitive and 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:
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>
* Taking the Tibetan categorization of {{gtib|ཐ་དད་པ་}} and {{gtib|ཐ་མི་དད་པ་}} as a bases leads to trouble with {{gtib|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 {{gtib|ཐ་དད་པ་}} verbs).
* Looking at the presence or absence of an object leads to the question why with "to love" {{gtib|བྱམས་པ་}} "that what is loved" is not the object but a qualifier and with "to harm" {{gtib|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" {{gtib|གནོད་པ་}} would be intransitive verbs with an agent in the agentive case and a qualifier that looks like a patient /object. (Using the patient in ''ming tsam'' would probably my approach of choice, (including an exception for 'verbs of benefit and harm'), but at this point I still think that the approach by agentive case agent is the easiest for learners. This is clearly a choice that could be debated.)


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


Because of verbs like "to harm" {{gtib|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  {{gtib|ཐ་དད་པ་}} verbs in Tibetan this way of categorizing of verbs is chosen&mdash;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.
'''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>




==Volition: transitive-intransitive==
===Verbs Expressing Mental Activity with Directed Grammar===
'''Volition''' in general refers to a distinction that is made in a ''verb's conjugations''<ref>Conjugation is the creation of derived forms of a verb by inflection (regular alteration&mdash;change of sound/spelling&mdash;according to rules of grammar).</ref> or ''case assignment''<ref>Like assigning the agentive case to the subject of an  intentional verb.</ref>to express whether the subject intended the action or not, whether it was done voluntarily or accidentally (involuntarily).
 
In Tibetan volition does neither entirely rule the usage of the agentive case nor he distinction between {{gtib|ཐ་མི་དད་པ་}} and {{gtib|ཐ་དད་པ་}}:
* ''Unintentional intransitive'' verbs are {{gtib|ཐ་མི་དད་པ་}} and have no agent in the agentive case.
* ''Intentional intransitive'' verbs are {{gtib|ཐ་མི་དད་པ་}} and have no agent in the agentive case, i.e., verbs of motion and living.
* ''Unintentional transitive'' verbs are {{gtib|ཐ་མི་དད་པ་}} and have an agent in the agentive case, e.g., unintentional verbs of perception.
* ''Intentional transitive'' verbs are {{gtib|ཐ་དད་པ་}} and have an agent in the agentive case.
 
{| class="wikitable" style="color:black;  padding: 0px; border: 1px solid #777; text-align:left,top" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5"
|+
|-
|style="width:10%; background: #e0e0e0; border: 1px solid #999"|'''volition'''
|style="width:45%; background: #e0e0e0; border: 1px solid #999"|intransitive
|style="width:45%; background: #e0e0e0; border: 1px solid #999"|transitive
|-
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|unintentional
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|E.g. unintentional intransitive verbs, e.g. {{gtib|འཆར་བ་}}, to appear<br>unintentional verbs of feeling, e.g. {{gtib|བཀྲེས་པ་}}, to be hungry
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|E.g. unintentional verbs of perception, e.g. {{gtib|མཐོང་བ་}}, to see<br>verbs of "understanding", e.g. {{gtib|ཧ་གོ་བ་}}, to understand<br>"passive / fruitional" verbs, e.g., {{gtib|འཐོབ་པ་}} to attain, to obtain
|-
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|
{| class="wikitable" style="color:black;  padding: 0px; border: 1px solid #777; text-align:left,top" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5"
|+
|-
|style="width:50%; background: #e0e0e0; border: 1px solid #999"|ming tsam
|style="width:50%; background: #e0e0e0; border: 1px solid #999"|{{gtib|ཐ་མི་དད་པ་}}
|-
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|patient / subject<br>{{gtib|མེ་ཏོག་}}
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|intransitive verb<br>{{gtib|འཆར}}
|}
The flower blossoms.
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|
{| class="wikitable" style="color:black;  padding: 0px; border: 1px solid #777; text-align:left,top" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5"
|+
|-
|style="width:33%; background: #e0e0e0; border: 1px solid #999"|agentive case
|style="width:33%; background: #e0e0e0; border: 1px solid #999"|ming tsam
|style="width:33%; background: #e0e0e0; border: 1px solid #999"|{{gtib|ཐ་མི་དད་པ་}}
|-
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|agent / subject<br>{{gtib|ཀུན་དགའ་བོས་}}
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|patient / object<br>{{gtib|དགྲ་བཅོམ་པ་ཉིད་}}
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|"fruitional" verb<br>{{gtib|ཐོབ་བོ།།}}
|}
Ananda attained [the state of an] arhat.
|-
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|intentional
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|E.g. verbs of motion, e.g. {{gtib|འགྲོ་བ་}}, to go<br>verbs of living, e.g. {{gtib|སྡོད་པ་}},  to stay<br>
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|E.g. intentional transitive verbs, e.g. {{gtib|སྟོན་པ་}}, to teach, 
{{gtib|འཐུང་བ་}}, to drink, {{gtib|བཟོ་བ་}}, to make, do, produce, manufacture
|-
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|
{| class="wikitable" style="color:black;  padding: 0px; border: 1px solid #777; text-align:left,top" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5"
|+
|-
|style="width:33%; background: #e0e0e0; border: 1px solid #999"|ming tsam
|style="width:33%; background: #e0e0e0; border: 1px solid #999"|''lad don''
|style="width:33%; background: #e0e0e0; border: 1px solid #999"|{{gtib|ཐ་མི་དད་པ་}}
|-
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|patient / subject<br>{{gtib|ཁོ་}}
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|qualifier<br>{{gtib|ལྷ་སར་}}
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|verb of motion<br>{{gtib|འགྲོ་}}
|}
He goes to Lhasa.
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|
{| class="wikitable" style="color:black;  padding: 0px; border: 1px solid #777; text-align:left,top" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5"
|+
|-
|style="width:33%; background: #e0e0e0; border: 1px solid #999"|agentive case
|style="width:33%; background: #e0e0e0; border: 1px solid #999"|ming tsam
|style="width:33%; background: #e0e0e0; border: 1px solid #999"|{{gtib|ཐ་དད་པ་}}
|-
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|agent / subject<br>{{gtib|ཁོས་}}
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|patient / object<br>{{gtib|ཇ་}}
|style="background: #f0f0f0; border: 1px solid #999"|transitive verb<br>{{gtib|འཐུང}}་
|}
He drinks tea.
|}
 


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>


=='verbs and their cases', considerations and conclusion==
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>


<!--
Note: not finished, leave out for now!
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
'''<nowiki>[</nowiki>...<nowiki>]</nowiki>'''


1.4. this presentation in relation to other systems


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


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 intransitive 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"