On 26. jan. 2016 12:56, J S Jones wrote: > Jan17 has a few applicatives, usually increasing the valence. Heh, I just finished the chapter on applicatives in Basic Linguistic Theory yesterday evening. > I label the arguments of the verb X, Y, and Z. When the verb is > intransitive, the applicative redefines the X argument to have the > semantic role specified by the applicative (such as instrument, > beneficiary, destination, etc.). According to RMWD@BLT, *canonical* applicatives redefine an existing peripheral argument (location, instrument, comitative, goal, recipient) as a patient/object, with language-dependent effects on the original patient/object if any. If the valency changes and that affects the subject, that is due to the valency change, not the applicative. A nominative stays a nominative and an absolutive changes to an ergative on going from intransitive to transitive for instance. What he calls "quasi-applicatives" is when there is no possibility for an existing peripheral argument, and the applicative is the only way to connect the argument to a verb. > Here's the odd thing: when the instrumental applicative is used on a > transitive verb and the X argument is a person, Which type of instrumental applicative? (I'll summarize the types of applicatives in the book when I get home.) According to BLT, applicatives don't mess with the agent/subject, so if your stuff does that, you don't have applicatives but something new, nice and shiny. t.