Basque (Isolate)

Mismatch: morphosyntax: pseudo-agent

Mismatch: morphosyntax: pseudo-object

---

Mismatch 1
Basque displays a mismatch in the so-called allocutive forms, which involves the introduction of a spurious second person argument. Because of the complexity of Basque verbal morphology, some exposition is required before presenting the actual mismatch.

Verb can be divided into four classes on the basis of argument marking they take.

verb class	example
monovalent intransitve	nator 'I(ABS) come'
bivalent intransitive	natorkizu 'I(ABS) come to you(DAT)'
bivalent transitive	dakart 'I(ERG) bring it(ABS)'
trivalent	dakarkizut 'I(ERG) bring it(ABS) to you(DAT)'

(Note that the absolutive argument of the trivalent class must be 3rd person.)

Morphologically, verbs mark either one argument (monovalent intransitive) or two (the rest; in trivalent verbs, the absolutive argument is not overtly marked on the verb). Most verbs are conjugated periphrastically, with TAM values expressed on an auxiliary ('be' for intransitives, 'have' for transitives):

monovalent intransitive			bivalent transitive
Erori	naiz.		Saldu	dut.
fallen	I.am		sold	I.have.it
'I have fallen.'			'I have sold it.'

The allocutive is a special form used when the addressee is 2nd person singular familiar. It occurs only with main clause verbs, and its use there is obligatory. Morphologically, the allocutive form appears to involve the addition of a 2nd person singular familiar argument, though the details vary with the verb class:

verb class	allocutive form
monovalent intransitve	→ bivalent transitive (with 2SG FAM ERG argument)
bivalent intransitive	+ a distinct ending (≈ 2SG FAM gender marker)
bivalent transitive	→ trivalent transitive (with 2SG FAM DAT argument)
trivalent	+ a distinct ending (≈ 2SG FAM gender marker)

(Note that, in the case of bivalent transitives, the allocutive is formed only if the object is 3rd person.)

Thus, the allocutive form of the auxilary used with monovalent intransitives and bivalent transitives does not have a unique form (though see below); rather, it has the form it would have if a 2nd singular familiar argument were added to it:

monovalent intransitive
normal	allocutive
	M addressee	F addressee
etorri naiz 'I have come'	etorri nauk	etorri naun		ikusi nauk ~ naun 'you (M ~ F) have seen me'
erori garra 'we have fallen'	erori gaituk	erori gaitun	compare bivalent transitive:	ikusi gaituk ~ gaitun 'you (M ~ F) have seen us'
ederrak dira 'they are pretty'	ederrak dituk	ederrak ditun		katuak dituk ~ ditun 'you (M ~ F) have cats'
(p. 244)

bivalent transitive
normal	allocutive
	M addressee	F addressee
edan du 's/he has drunk it'	edan dik	edan din	compare trivalent transitive:	eman dik ~ din 'she has given it to you (M ~ F)'
ikusi dut 'I have seen it'	ikusi diat	ikusi dinat		eman diat ~ dinat 'I have given it to you (M ~ F)'
(p. 245)

The relevant portions of the paradigms are given below (indicative forms of the auxiliary are taken as representative). The normal forms which are replaced by allocutive forms are struck through, and colour-coded with the corresponding form which serves for the allocutive. (Note that in the past tense there is some deviation from this principle in the 3rd person, and in the 1st plural).:

subject		allocutive monovalent intransitive	compare with bivalent transitive (absolutive object)
			1SG	1PL	2SG FAM	2SG	3SG	3PL
1SG	PRS PST	naiz → nauk nintzen → ninduan			haut hindudan	zaitut zintudan	dut nuen	ditut nituen
1PL	PRS PST	gara → gaituk ginen → ginduan~ginduan			haugu hindugun	zaitugu zintugun	dugu genuen	ditugu genituen
2SG FAM M	PRS PST	haiz hintzen	nauk ninduan	gaituk gintuan			duk huen	dituk hituen
2SG FAM F	PRS PST	haiz hintzen	naun nindunan	gaitun gintunan			dun huen	ditun hituen
3SG	PRS PST	da → duk zen → zuan~zunan	nau ninduen	gaitu gintuen	hau hinduen	zaitu zintuen	du zuen	ditu zituen
3PL	PRS PST	dira → dituk ziren → zituan~zituan	naute ninduten	gaituzte gintuzten	haute hinduten	zaituztete zintuzteten	dute zuten	dituzte zituzten
(pp. 213, 222-23, 244) subject allocutive bivalent transitive (absolutive object) compare with trivalent transitive (dative object) 3SG 3PL 1SG 1PL 2SG FAM M 2SG FAM F 3SG 3PL 1SG PRS PST dut → diat~dinat nuen → nian~ninan ditut nituen diat nian dinat ninan diot nion diet nien 1PL PRS PST dugu → diagu~dinagu genuen → genian~geninan ditugu genituen diagu genian dinagu geninan diogu genion diegu genien 2SG FAM M PRS PST duk huen dituk hituen didak hidan diguk higun diok hion diek hien 2SG FAM F PRS PST dun huen ditun hituen didan hidan digun higun dion hion dien hien 3SG PRS PST du → dik~din zuen → zian~zinan ditu zituen dit zidan digu zigun dik zian din zinan dio zion die zien 3PL PRS PST dute → diate~dinate zuten → ziaten~zinaten dituzte zituzten didate zidaten digute ziguten diate ziaten dinate zinaten diote zioten diete zieten (pp. 213, 222-23)

Mismatch 2
In addition to the default type of verb which is conjugated periphrastically, there is a small number of verbs conjugated synthetically. In some instances, there is a mismatch in the morphological encoding of argument structure:

• iraun ‘last' conjugates as a bivalent transitive (with a 3rd singular object), but behaves as an intransitive (p. 241).
• jario/erion ‘flow' conjugates as a trivalent transitive, but behaves as a bivalent intransitive, taking at most two arguments (absolutive and dative) (p. 241).
• jardun ‘be busy at; converse about, discuss' is conjugated as a bivalent transitive, but takes a locative or instrumental object rather than a direct (i.e. absolutive) object, e.g. lanean dihardut 'I am busy at work.LOC', fisikaz geniharduen 'we were discussing physics.INSTR' (p. 244).

---

References

Hualde, J.I., B. Oyharçabal and J. Ortiz de Urbina. 2003. Verbs. In José Ignacio Hualde and Jon Ortiz de Urbina (eds) A grammar of Basque. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 195-246.