Print

Print


Thinking about it more, this might be a case where it is more useful to
think of theta roles / thematic relations than valence. For instance, both
"give" and "put" could be ditransitive verbs, but "give" can license a
theme + a goal or a theme + a recipient, but "put" can only license a theme
+ a goal. Perhaps that's why the asymmetry exists.

portfolio <http://zwelldesigns.com/> · 身先朝露 - 画龙点睛 ·

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Zach Wellstood <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> That is true, so the indirect object needs to be a prepositional phrase?
> It doesn't seem so strange to me.
>
> But there is an interesting asymmetry.
>
> I give you the book.
>
> *I put on the table the book.
> *I put the table the book.
>
>
>
> portfolio <http://zwelldesigns.com/> · 身先朝露 - 画龙点睛 ·
>
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 12:25 PM, Mitchell Halley <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> I thought so to but it can't just be an object; it needs a preposition
>> *I put the book the table
>>
>> On Sep 7, 2017 12:24 PM, "Zach Wellstood" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> > Ditransitive?
>> >
>> > I give the book to you. (Ditransitive)
>> > *I give the book.
>> >
>> > I put the book on the table. (Ditransitive)
>> > *I put the book.
>> >
>> >
>> > portfolio <http://zwelldesigns.com/> · 身先朝露 - 画龙点睛 ·
>> >
>> > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Mitchell Halley <
>> > [log in to unmask]>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > so put is a transitive verb right but in order to use it you also
>> need a
>> > > prepositional phrase
>> > > there's almost certainly a word for that type of transitivity but idk
>> > what
>> > > it is please help
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>