Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Squib: Dynamic vs. Stative Verbs in Mantauran (Rukai)

Squib: Dynamic vs. Stative Verbs in Mantauran (Rukai) Squib Dynamic vs. Stative Verbs in Mantauran (Rukai)1 Elizabeth Zeitoun academia sinica 1. INTRODUCTION. In articles appearing in this same issue (Zeitoun and Huang 2000, Huang 2000),2 Lillian Huang and I show that in many Formosan languages, dynamic and stative verbs exhibit different morphological alternations. In their ²nite forms (AF constructions), dynamic verbs can be marked by different focus/voice af²xes (-um-, -ºm-, m-, Ø, etc.), while stative verbs are marked by maor Ø. In their non²nite forms,3 dynamic verbs are unmarked, whereas stative verbs are marked by ka-. Though Mantauran Rukai differs from the other Formosan languages in a number of respects (see Zeitoun 1995, 1997a­b),4 (most) verbs can also be categorized as either dynamic or stative, based on their conjugation patterns (²nite, non²nite, and subjunctive forms).5 The aim of the present paper is twofold. First, to list all the constructions that induce a non²nite verb form to further support the idea--as an addemdum to Zeitoun and Huang (2000)--that in many Formosan languages and in Mantauran Rukai in particular, ka- must be singled out as a distinct morpheme and be treated as the counterpart of the stem-forming af²x ma-: ka- occurs in non²nite stative verbs, and ma- in http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Oceanic Linguistics University of Hawai'I Press

Squib: Dynamic vs. Stative Verbs in Mantauran (Rukai)

Oceanic Linguistics , Volume 39 (2) – Dec 1, 2000

Loading next page...
 
/lp/university-of-hawai-i-press/squib-dynamic-vs-stative-verbs-in-mantauran-rukai-QkDhjKyGZ0
Publisher
University of Hawai'I Press
Copyright
Copyright © 2000 University of Hawai'i Press.
ISSN
1527-9421
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Squib Dynamic vs. Stative Verbs in Mantauran (Rukai)1 Elizabeth Zeitoun academia sinica 1. INTRODUCTION. In articles appearing in this same issue (Zeitoun and Huang 2000, Huang 2000),2 Lillian Huang and I show that in many Formosan languages, dynamic and stative verbs exhibit different morphological alternations. In their ²nite forms (AF constructions), dynamic verbs can be marked by different focus/voice af²xes (-um-, -ºm-, m-, Ø, etc.), while stative verbs are marked by maor Ø. In their non²nite forms,3 dynamic verbs are unmarked, whereas stative verbs are marked by ka-. Though Mantauran Rukai differs from the other Formosan languages in a number of respects (see Zeitoun 1995, 1997a­b),4 (most) verbs can also be categorized as either dynamic or stative, based on their conjugation patterns (²nite, non²nite, and subjunctive forms).5 The aim of the present paper is twofold. First, to list all the constructions that induce a non²nite verb form to further support the idea--as an addemdum to Zeitoun and Huang (2000)--that in many Formosan languages and in Mantauran Rukai in particular, ka- must be singled out as a distinct morpheme and be treated as the counterpart of the stem-forming af²x ma-: ka- occurs in non²nite stative verbs, and ma- in

Journal

Oceanic LinguisticsUniversity of Hawai'I Press

Published: Dec 1, 2000

There are no references for this article.