We have partnered with TradePub to bring you free industry magazines and resources - no coupons or credit cards required!
Visit: englishforums.tradepub.com
This question is Not Answered
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anatbs
+
457297
Wed, 26 Dec 07 07:49 PM
Hello, people As you see I have some difficulty in understanding classes of verbs, especially if they are connected to one another. The classes of unaccusative verbs and unergative verbs are a bit confusing to me. According to thier definition, unergative verbs are monadic verbs which have 1 external argument, whereas unaccusative verbs are monadic verbs which have 1 internal argument. the examples given are: wilt, fall, collapse, burst, vanish, rust, fail, expire - unaccusative V run, caugh, laugh, fly, sing, yawn, swim - unergative V can someone please explain to me how come the unergative class has an external argument and the unaccusative class has an internal argument? you can use the examples given. thank you very very much.
Joined on
Tue, Dec 25 2007
New Member
27
It is better to try everthing in life and find them empty, than to try nothing and leave your life a blank
(Charlotte Bronte)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Flexicap11
+
457409
Thu, 27 Dec 07 06:31 AM
Hi Anaths,
Wikipedia has an entry about this subject.
Please click here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unaccusative_verb
I hope this helps.
Cheers,
Flexicap11
capili@hotmail.com
Joined on
Fri, Nov 16 2007
Earth, Solar Sytem
New Member
06
Never say never!
Sag' niemals nie'
Nunca digas nunca jamás!
Niciodată nu spune niciodată!
Ano sa Tagalog yun?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CalifJim
+
457680
Fri, 28 Dec 07 01:35 AM
Generally speaking, the subject of a sentence, where the subject is the
agent of the action of the sentence, is the "external argument".
Other noun phrase arguments of the sentences (particularly the direct
object, also called the accusative) are referred to as the "internal
arguments".
According to thier definition, unergative verbs are monadic verbs which
have 1 external argument, whereas unaccusative verbs are monadic verbs
which have 1 internal argument.
the examples given are:
wilt, fall, collapse, burst, vanish, rust, fail, expire - unaccusative V
run, caugh, laugh, fly, sing, yawn, swim - unergative V |
|
So it seems that, according to the definitions you gave, the
unaccusatives are missing a subject and the unergatives are missing an
accusative -- in some sense -- so that the underlying structure of the
concepts of wilt, fall, run, laugh, etc., are something like:
... wilts me, ... falls me, ... collapses me, ... vanishes me, ...
I run, I laugh, I yawn, ...
Thus, I imagine the central claim is that wilting, falling, collapsing, etc. are things that happen to me; I do not actually do them.
Conversely, running, laughing, yawning, etc. are things that I do (as an agent); they do not just happen to me.
But I'm merely speculating. None of it has never made a lot of
sense to me, and over the years I've found what seem to me to be
contradictory definitions of these verb classes, so let me know if you
find out what it all means. I'd be interested in finding
out.
CJ
Joined on
Mon, Aug 2 2004
California
Veteran Member
22,380
"There are no facts, only interpretations" - Nietzsche
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous,
1 yr 10 days ago
Unaccusative verbs cannot asign accusative case to their subjects. For that reason, their subjects carry the theta role of patients or themes. As a consequence they allow post verbal subjects... and there insertion.. there comes the Queen...
|