This does not seem too dissimilar to Chas. Fillmore's "Case Grammar" system (which I liked a lot!!) back in the 70s, where verbs were characterized by the arguments they could take, e.g. LOVE [A, P], GIVE [A, IO, P], RUN [A (L)], HIT [A, P (I) (L)]--at least as best I recall it after all these years :-(  I don't remember how he handled impersonal verbs like RAIN, or reflexives like BATHE, SHAVE,  as opposed to transitive BATHE [A,P] etc.

What do X and T stand in these examplese? They aren't in the list of abbreviations.

--- On Wed, 8/29/12, Arthaey Angosii <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: Arthaey Angosii <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Leipzig Valency Classes Project
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Wednesday, August 29, 2012, 10:35 AM

While researching valency, I came across the Leipzig Valency Classes Project:

They are gathering (natlang) data on "role frames" for verb valency.
They include a questionnaire of 70 verbs to elicit valency patterns. I
thought this would make a useful wordlist for conlangers, so I typed
up the relevant portions of their PDF and put it on my website: