this post was submitted on
10 points (91% like it)
11 up votes 1 down vote
all 32 comments

[–]GrammarSocialistsociolinguistics 16 points17 points ago

Some people call "trade" a tri-transitive verb, as in "Alice traded Bob a pen for his pencil." Not sure if that covers what you're thinking of.

[–]Thelonious_Cube 3 points4 points ago

Nice one

[–]WaxProlix 2 points3 points ago

Trade, bet, wager, exchange, some uses of 'give' (meaning to trade)...

I noticed the other day that one use of 'bet' might actually be a 5-place predicate:
I'll bet you my favorite waffle recipe against your shiny earrings that you can't eat twelve donuts in six seconds.

[–]shawnasty 1 point2 points ago

I'm not convinced that "against your shiny earrings" is a complement of bet. It seems like it might be a constituent along with "my favorite waffle recipe". Because if you "bet against" something, it means something different than what you're doing with the earrings in this case.

[–]evieplural 0 points1 point ago

But there's an imbedded clause in that sentence, so it doesn't follow OP's guidelines.

[–]WaxProlix 0 points1 point ago

My interpretation was that CPs can take thematic roles as well as DPs. If you operate under different assumptions then yeah, it won't work. But if the thing-that-is-being-wagered-upon is, in fact, an argument of the verb in the root clause, then it counts.

[–]delayclose 0 points1 point ago

I wouldn't call "for his pencil" an object, though.

[–]DNiemi 13 points14 points ago

Yes, many Bantu languages do it. Kinyarwanda is famous for this, for example [umugore araheera umugabo imbwa ibiryo] "The woman is giving food to the dog for the man", where "man" is syntactically an object.

[–]limetomhistorical linguistics 8 points9 points ago*

In a very similar way to many Bantu languages, as DNiemi pointed out, Ainu can have a polytransitive verb.

A made up example:

  • Ku-matak kamuy cise k-o-e-ko-isoytak.
  • 1SG.POSS-younger_sister bear house 1SG.SUBJ-in.APL-about.APL-to.APL-tell_a_story.
  • "I told my younger sister a story about bears in the house." (The English here is ambiguous but the Ainu is not: the storytelling is taking place in the house; the bears are not.)

These constructions, however, are exceedingly rare; you almost never find more than two applicatives on a verb.

EDIT On further reflection based off of my corpus data, this is probably impossible. However, we can't really know unless we go ask the last native speakers, if there are any.

[–]stroopsaidwhat 3 points4 points ago

Ea cenam puella filiae dare potest. She can give the dinner from the girl to the daughter. My Latin is rusty but does that even count in English for what you are asking?

[–]castorquinn 0 points1 point ago

The phrase 'from the girl' in both English and Latin in that sentence function as adjectives I think, modifying the noun, not as objects of the verb, yeah?

[–]Choosing_is_a_sinsociolinguistics 4 points5 points ago

In Foundations of Language, Ray Jackendoff gives the example of the verbs wager or bet, that has four arguments. Here's a sentence with it:

John bet Tim $25 that he couldn't swallow a sword.

It's hard for me to come up with a scenario in which we could substitute a noun for that final clause, so my guess is no. Just a guess.

[–]EvilCartyentypology 5 points6 points ago

scumbag anglocentric linguist - answers question about the possibility of a phenomenon occurring in human language on the basis of only English :P

[–]incaseyoucare 6 points7 points ago

Sorry...is English not a human language?

[–]EvilCartyentypology 1 point2 points ago

Of course it is. But if I answered the same question with "I can't say it's possible in Danish, so I guess that's a negative", would that be fair? Claims and hypotheses about the phenomenon of language should be tested against a typologically valid and representative subset of the languages of the world.

So while English is indeed a human language, examining only English is not adequate for any kind of broad claim about language.

[–]incaseyoucare 0 points1 point ago

I hate it when this happens: not sure if you're a troll or especially dense.

Oh well, here's the stupid-simple explanation that I'm compelled by internet law to give you.

Is a feature-

-Possible in human language?--> at least one language has it.

-Impossible in human language?--> not even one language has it.

[–]EvilCartyentypology 1 point2 points ago

It's hard for me to come up with a scenario in which we could substitute a noun for that final clause, so my guess is no. Just a guess.

I took this to mean that OP rejected the notion on the basis of English only. Excuse me if I was wrong. If I am, you are obviously correct ;)

EDIT: Also, please avoid being a dick. Sometimes people are not 'dense', but may have merely misunderstood something. I realise that there is a proud tradition for being a dick in linguistics, but I am not particularly fond of it.

[–]incaseyoucare 1 point2 points ago

Your right. I'm wrong. He did try to reject it based on one example from English.

[–]psygnisfive 4 points5 points ago

While I get the joke, you seem to not understand the meaning of "possible".

[–]Choosing_is_a_sinsociolinguistics 0 points1 point ago

Argument structure is one of those things that's cross-linguistically really stable. If it had existed in one of the other languages I speak, I would ave offered it. I was offering a thought experiment to see if others would pick up the ball.

[–]EvilCartyentypology 0 points1 point ago

I wasn't actually trying to call you out specifically, and I certainly don't expect every comment to be a typological study in itself :) I was just highlighting the widespread tendency to make claims about language based on only one or two Indo-European languages, very often English. I find that tendency problematic.

Please don't take my joke too seriously, though, and don't let it stop you from contributing in the future.

[–]Wierdmin 0 points1 point ago

Someone get this man a meme, stat!

[–]adlerchen -2 points-1 points ago*

That example is wrong. It's a sentence composed of two clauses, where the first clause contains 3 arguments - the most that can exist in english - and the other containg 2:

John - subject/nominative

bet - verb

Tim - indirect object/dative

$25 - direct object/accusitive

that - conjunction [seperating the two clauses]

he - subject/nominative

couldn't swallow - verb phrase

a - article

sword. - direct object/accusitive

[–]Choosing_is_a_sinsociolinguistics 0 points1 point ago

Uhhh yeah, that was the whole foundation of me guessing that it couldn't be done...

EDIT Also, that he couldn't swallow a sword is an argument of wager. That is not a conjunction, but is rather a subordinator.

[–]hurrayforzac 0 points1 point ago

yeah, it sounds like really any language with at least four distinct cases (the main ones plus maybe dative, ablative, and/or locative) should be able to have as many arguments. i don't know any of those that well, but those Bantu languages, Latin, and probably Finnish and Basque should meet the criteria. we can't do it so easily in english because we've lost a lot of our case system, but you can think of a situation like:

The subject gave this direct object with a comitative object to this dative object on behalf of a benefactive object near some locative object with an instrumental object ...and on and on and on.

[–]BadRussianTranslator 2 points3 points ago

Человек дал ручку с красными цветыми другому человеку для Андрея у школы руками.

[–]demaney 0 points1 point ago

Why wouldn't "Jake gave Sally, Moses, and Jebediah their gifts" count?

[–]razorbeamz[S] 2 points3 points ago

No, because "Sally, Moses, and Jebediah" is the direct object.

[–]demaney 4 points5 points ago

Ok, so the noun phrase, not the noun, is the direct object? Thank you!

[–]hurrayforzac 0 points1 point ago

yep. just as "The man who bought some beer and kicked a soccer ball's" is a determiner in the DP "The man who bought some beer and kicked a soccer ball's jacket."

phrase and head distinctions are huge and amazing. recursion, baby.

[–]kaddok 0 points1 point ago

In Galician, is pretty frequent to have a "solidarity pronoun", used to involve the speaker with the action, and also, an "interest dative" indicating the beneficiary or sufferer of the actions.

So if you combine all that with the appropiate verb, you could get a sentence with references to up to five objects, four if you get nitpicky.

"A miña nai non che vos deu a carta ao meu pai"

(My mom didn't give the letter to my dad [for you] [solidarity])

where

A miña nai (my mom) -> subject

a carta (the letter) -> direct object

o meu pai (my dad) -> indirect object

che (literally, sg. you) -> [solidarity pronoun]

vos (pl. you) -> interest dative

[–]evieplural 0 points1 point ago

The only situations I can think of involve objects of the preposition. But then again, I only know 4 languages and no where near as many as all of human language :).