Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
This generally applies only to subject-verb agreement; pronominal agreement is by its nature long-distance, and so the concept of "closest" makes less sense in this case. If using "general agreement" and there is a disagreement among properties (e.g. some male, some female), either:
ka tama-ŋɔ river-prox. in- ka this ka tama- ā -ŋɔ river-pl-prox. in- ka - ā these ka tama-ŋɔ in- ka / ka tama- ā -ŋɔ in- ka - ā river-prox. this / river-pl-prox. these In this example, what is copied is not a prefix, but rather the initial syllable of the head "river". By language Languages can have no conventional agreement whatsoever, as in Japanese or Malay ; barely any, as in ...
Mary. NOM er is snillingur genius. NOM María er snillingur Mary.NOM is genius.NOM In Standard English, a sentence like "*Me like him" is ungrammatical because the subject is ordinarily in the nominative case. In many or most nominative–accusative languages, this rule is inflexible: the subject is indeed in the nominative case, and almost all treat the subjects of all verbs the same ...
In linguistic typology, subject–verb–object (SVO) is a sentence structure where the subject comes first, the verb second, and the object third. Languages may be classified according to the dominant sequence of these elements in unmarked sentences (i.e., sentences in which an unusual word order is not used for emphasis).
Inverse copular constructions where the inverted predicative expression is a noun phrase are noteworthy in part because subject-verb agreement can (at least in English) be established with the pre-verb predicative NP as opposed to with the post-verb subject NP, e.g. a. The pictures are a problem. - Canonical word order, standard subject-verb ...
The subject is defined as the verb argument that appears outside the canonical finite verb phrase, whereas the object is taken to be the verb argument that appears inside the verb phrase. [3] This approach takes the configuration as primitive, whereby the grammatical relations are then derived from the configuration.
Another issue is verb agreement when both subject and predicative expression are noun phrases (and differ in number or person): in English, the copula typically agrees with the syntactical subject even if it is not logically (i.e. semantically) the subject, as in the cause of the riot is (not are) these pictures of the wall.
In linguistic typology, ergative–absolutive alignment is a type of morphosyntactic alignment in which the single argument ("subject") of an intransitive verb behaves like the object of a transitive verb, and differently from the agent ("subject") of a transitive verb. [1] Examples include Basque, Georgian, Mayan, Tibetan, Sumerian, and ...